Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Fluoridation

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What plans he has to introduce legislation on the fluoridation of drinking water. [156283]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Over the last 40 years, the fluoridation of water in selected areas has made a worthwhile contribution to improving oral health, but we are taking further expert advice on the effects of fluoridation before considering whether changes should be made to the current legislation which leaves the water undertakers to decide whether to agree to health authority requests for new fluoridation schemes.

Mr. Winterton: I am personally strongly opposed to the mass fluoridation—the mass medication—Of the public water supply, so I ask the Minister how the present Government and the Medicines Control Agency can reconcile their policy and practice with United Kingdom and European medicines legislation because the whole purpose of adding fluoride to drinking water is to treat, prevent or cure a disease. That is the intention of those authorising the process, and that is how the consumer perceives it. Is there going to be legislation compulsorily to medicate our total water supply?

Ms Stuart: It was our desire to establish a good scientific evidential basis for fluoridation. The York report was published last October and as a consequence of that we have asked the Medical Research Council to provide a better evidential base; but as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the purpose is to improve the dental health of this nation, so I hope that, despite the fact that we shall be asking for evidence, he welcomes the tremendous investment in South Cheshire health authority, which has approved some 27,000 extra registrations for dentists. He now has a dental access centre in his constituency, and some £60,000 was invested in the dental care development fund. We are therefore working on both fronts—to improve the dental health of the nation and to obtain better evidence.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is aware that this is a hugely contentious issue. I wonder

whether, in the light of the fact that the Government are committed to devolving decision making in a range of areas to local people, there may be a commitment in principle to enable local ballots to take place to ensure local determination on whether fluoride is added to water supplies.

Ms Stuart: Despite the number of applications that we have had for fluoridation, none of them has succeeded simply because we have made it absolutely clear that the majority of the population would have to be in favour of any extra fluoridation, should it be implemented.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: But is not the evidence extremely mixed, including that from the York report? Although it appears that fluoride does have some good topical effect on teeth, too much fluoride discolours teeth and we do not yet know its long-term effects on the bone mass. Fluoride is, after all, a poison. Will the Minister comment on that?

Ms Stuart: Of course there are also hugely varying levels of naturally occurring fluoridation in the country—there are many areas where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. That is why there is a two-pronged attack. We are not only looking at the evidential basis of what adding fluoride would do, but at the same time improving access to and the quality of the dental services available. In particular, we are paying attention to what happens to children—setting up pilot projects that encourage young children to brush their teeth more frequently. We are working along both lines, to improve dental health and to do further research on fluoridation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Community Disability Equipment

Mr. Tom Levitt: If he will make a statement about the provision of community disability equipment. [156284]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): An additional £105 million is being made available to the national health service for community equipment services over the three years from April 2001, and local authorities are receiving additional provision in their personal social services settlements. New guidance aimed at improving these services was issued last month and copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

Mr. Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In parts of the country such as my own, where assessments are carried out by social services in one local authority and the implementation of disability services in the home is carried out by the housing authority in another, there is some confusion. I am sure that the guidelines will be very helpful. Would my hon. Friend note that last Friday I opened a disability equipment loan centre organised by the British Red Cross in Buxton, and take this opportunity to welcome the co-operation of the voluntary sector in this way?

Mr. Hutton: Yes, I certainly would. May I start by wishing my hon. Friend many happy returns as I believe that it is his birthday? Also, I hope that he will have another happy return in the not-too-distant future.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the voluntary sector and the role that it can play and the contribution it can make in this important area. I strongly agree that there is an overwhelming case for the integration of social services and NHS equipment services at a local level. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to seeing that take place, and we have issued guidance to local authorities and the NHS to ensure that that can take place in 2004.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Despite the Prime Minister's personal intervention, taking responsibility for community disability a year ago, it remains an area of failure, although we welcome the announcement of the money today. However, the Audit Commission's recent report—Called, rather ironically, "Fully Equipped"—States that poor quality services are stripping disabled people of their dignity. Will the Secretary of State match our proposal to establish a single fundholder to pay out incapacity benefit and with the power to purchase physical aids, physiotherapy and a range of other medical treatments?

Mr. Hutton: We need to be absolutely clear about one thing: the problems did not start on 1 May 1997. In fact, the report to which the hon. Lady refers represents just as much a description of the Tory years, when they were managing the NHS, as anything else. Of course, we would take her strictures on the subject a little more seriously if she and her hon. Friends would match our spending on social services, because she will be aware that the report deals with social services issues. She will also be aware that until and unless the Conservative party matches that spending, her words and her crocodile tears will be dismissed as completely contemptible.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cancer Treatment

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What major capital investments in cancer treatment facilities have been made in the last two years. [156285]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Some £95 million from the new opportunities fund and £100 million of NHS resources are being invested in cancer treatment facilities, and 56 new linear accelerators, 95 new CT scanners and 35 MRI scanners have now been allocated across the health service.

Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware of the announcement last week of the additional resources for the Royal Preston hospital, which will ensure that the facilities in that hospital can meet the needs of the people of Lancashire. We welcome that, but can he assure us that that hospital will be able to meet the needs of all the people in Lancashire in the future and supplement the facilities that have been traditionally provided at the Christie hospital in Manchester?

Mr. Milburn: There is a very important role for both hospitals, and it is extremely important that we invest in more equipment and staff in those cancer services and, indeed, in greater prevention of cancer in the first place. As my hon. Friend is well aware, after decades of the shameful neglect of cancer services, the investment is now being made. It is worth my hon. Friend's reminding his

constituents in the weeks to come that, under the previous Government, not a single penny was earmarked for cancer services funding, but under this Government in this financial year £280 million extra will be invested in modernising cancer services.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Secretary of State convinced that the NHS has yet got the balance right between surgical and chemical or radiotherapy cancer treatments? Is he aware that this country has pioneered the microsurgical treatment of cancer, which increased survival rates and reduced the complications and indignities suffered by patients when it was adopted and disseminated abroad? Why is not more effort being put into disseminating those skills throughout the NHS?

Mr. Milburn: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, a big effort is being made to ensure that not only chemotherapy and improved radiography services and so on are available, but that more surgical options are available to cancer patients. As he is aware, during the past year or so, we have made great strides in ensuring that, although all the problems have not been solved, there is at least progress on the waiting times that cancer patients have to endure for initial outpatient appointments. We set a target for patients to be seen within a fortnight. Thankfully, about 100,000 women with suspected breast cancer have now been seen within a matter of weeks, rather than months, which was the situation previously, and they go on to a variety of treatments, including surgery.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we must get the balance right, but to do so we must ensure that the investment is sustained. If he is as concerned as he says he is about those issues, he might have a word with his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench to remind them that watching Labour's health funding for the NHS is an important priority for his party.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome the investment in cancer treatment, but, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, mesothelioma is a particularly nasty form of cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos. This year, there have been 1,500 deaths from mesothelioma, and Professor Peto's forecast is that that will rise considerably and peak in about 2010 or 2020. He will also be aware that the Macmillan foundation is training a network of nurses to provide care for people suffering from mesothelioma, but there is a need in the initial stages for an information line. Will he consider how an information line may be set up and co-ordinated in the first stages to support that network of nurses?

Mr. Milburn: If my hon. Friend cares to write to me with his suggestions. I will gladly consider them. He also made an important broader point, which is that inevitably in the NHS service we often focus on how we can improve treatment services. However, as we all know, a huge number of deaths from illnesses such as cancer and coronary heart disease are preventable by action in the workplace and by tackling such things as smoking. We are committed to such preventive action, and it will be worth my hon. Friend's reminding his constituents that while the Government are backing measures that mean


that fewer people will smoke in future, most notably by a ban on tobacco advertising, the Conservative party, despite its warm words, refuses to back such a ban.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Labour's manifesto at the last general election pledged to end waiting for cancer surgery. Does the Secretary of State consider the pledge to have been met?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set a target for reducing—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman can wait before asking another question, he will get an answer to the first. We set a target for reducing the time that it takes to get people with suspected cancer into hospital. I am pleased to say that between 95 and 97 per cent. of women with suspected breast cancer are now being seen within a fortnight. We have set additional targets for people to be seen within a fortnight for all forms of suspected cancer, including lung and prostate cancer. As a consequence, we are reducing the waiting times for all forms of cancer treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Female Sterilisation

Fiona Mactaggart: If he will publish guidelines for NHS trusts about the information to be given to women facing sterilisation operations relating to the chances of failure. [156286]

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): The Department of Health funded the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to review and publish guidelines for sterilisation for all its members. The guidelines state clearly that all women should be informed, before a sterilisation operation, that the failure rate is around one in 200.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My question was inspired by my constituent, Marilyn Kearney, whose daughter Phoebe was born after Marilyn had had a failed sterilisation. She was not properly informed of the one in 200 failure rate; indeed, the person who operated on her thought that it was much lower. Since her plight has been publicised, women throughout the country have been in touch with her to say that they were not informed of the failure rate. What can the Government do to make sure that women undergoing the operation know that they risk a one in 200 chance of it failing, which might influence their decision about whether to proceed?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is critical that women get full, accurate information before they make such important decisions. The guidelines to which I referred were disseminated to all the members of the royal college and are widely available to the trusts. However, we will pursue with the royal colleges what further measures might be possible to ensure that the guidelines are being adhered to throughout the country.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Is the Minister aware that I was fortunate in gaining a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills in this Session and that my Bill covers standardised patient consent forms for all patients in the NHS and the independent sector? Does she agree that

all patients should be given a standardised form, explaining the treatment that they are about to receive and its risks and benefits? Will she support my Bill and its principles?

Yvette Cooper: I certainly support the principles of informed consent for all patients. We are keen to see measures that would improve the information given to patients as well as the counselling and support that they receive. It is not simply about providing patients with written information and particular facts; they must also have the chance to ask questions and to receive proper counselling, especially when they have conditions or face operations for which choices have to be made or where there are alternatives to the treatment that is being offered.

Oral Answers to Questions — Acute Care (Waiting Times)

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on waiting times for acute care. [156287]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Average waiting times for admission to hospital have fallen to 13 weeks, compared with 15 weeks in June 1998. By the end of 2005, no one will wait more than three months for a routine first out-patient appointment or more than six months for non-urgent admission to hospital under the targets set out in the NHS plan.

Mr. Paterson: In that case, will the Minister please telephone Dr. Ian Rummens, the secretary of my local medical committee, who has said that, despite there being a very mild flu epidemic this winter, it has been impossible to get patients into acute beds in any Shropshire hospital and into hospital in Hereford and Wrexham Maelor? Will the Minister please ring Dr. Rummens and address the question of increasing the number of acute beds?

Mr. Denham: I am not clinically qualified to know whether the hon. Gentleman suffers from amnesia, but he certainly has problems with his memory. About 40,000 hospital beds were lost under the previous Government, and this past winter has been the first for many years in which the number of general and acute beds went up. There were also more critical care beds in the national health service. The statistics for Shropshire show that the number of in-patients on the waiting list has fallen from the peak of 9,635 to 7,200 in February this year.

Ms Rosie Winterton: What can be done to ensure that general practitioners give accurate information to patients about waiting times? I was contacted recently by a number of constituents who complained about how long they had been told they would have to wait for care. When I looked into the matter, I found that the information that they had been given was wildly inaccurate. When I told them that, they felt rather aggrieved and there was perhaps the suspicion that they had been put under pressure to seek private treatment to receive quicker care. What can be done to make sure that GPs provide accurate information to their patients about such matters?

Mr. Denham: I would certainly be very concerned if there was any suggestion that patients had been encouraged


to go private in those circumstances. We have made it clear to hospital trusts that we wish them to provide local GPs with consultant-specific information about waiting times, so that GPs are able not only to inform their patient correctly and accurately about any likely length of wait but can decide according to the condition of their patient whether to refer to a specific consultant with specific expertise or whether a generic referral to a particular team of consultants might be more appropriate and might involve a shorter wait. We have publicised that guidance over the past year to the NHS, and I will be happy to follow the matter up in my hon. Friend's area to see whether that system is operating. That is the way the problem should be tackled.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Given the current concern about the increasing incidence of cases of tuberculosis, with a 50 per cent. rise in London over the past decade, is not the Minister concerned about the waiting times to see thoracic consultants? They have more than doubled since the Government came to office and have gone up fivefold in London. Is not that in no small part due to the fact that we have half as many specialists per head of population as the European average? Although we know that the Government have plans to recruit more doctors and nurses, that will take time. What can the Government do to accelerate the process for this particular speciality?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have made clear our plans to increase the number of consultants, including thoracic consultants, in the NHS in the years to come. We take TB very seriously. As he knows, there has been a worldwide resurgence in cases of TB, so that is why it is important to expand the capacity of the NHS to deal with the health problems that arise.
The hon. Gentleman referred to London. London, as a region, has already set itself the target of increasing the number of TB-trained nurses, and that is why we are also expanding the number of doctors and nurses across the board.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is it not true that cutting waiting times depends not only on the availability of consultants, but on having sufficient theatre space and theatre time? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the extra £116 million invested in Bradford royal infirmary, which serves my constituents, will help to contribute to reduced waiting times in the future?

Mr. Denham: The unprecedented investment that the Government are making in the NHS is enabling us to expand its capacity. I was able to refer earlier to the increased numbers of beds in the NHS, and we have 17,000 more nurses and more than 6,000 more doctors in the NHS. The capital programme that we have under way, which includes the largest ever hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS, will clearly expand operating theatre capacity. Those measures taken together can give us confidence that we will continue to cut the time that it takes people to receive treatment.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the Minister aware that behind the Casualty Watch revelation that the worst wait of all in an accident and emergency unit was at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, is a burgeoning list of

delays in elective surgery, as reflected in my postbag which has a flood of cases of delayed operations? Are the Government still unwilling to review their plans to spend £102 million reconfiguring buildings in a programme that will provide no extra capacity whatsoever, when half the area's consultants unanimously decided in a meeting to pass a motion saying that there was insufficient capacity to provide decent health care?

Mr. Denham: First, the Government have exceeded their manifesto commitment to cut waiting lists. The in-patient waiting list is 125,000 below the figure that we inherited. As for the Casualty Watch figures, the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful. Two out of the top three cases were kept in the accident and emergency department because of a clinical decision; it was not that no beds were available in the rest of the hospital. The doctors involved made a clinical decision that it was right to keep those patients under observation in the accident and emergency department. It would be wrong to believe that a lack of capacity lay behind their treatment.
Of course I am aware that the proposals for the hon. Gentleman's area are controversial. However, I believe that the Government's investment in them will allow us to deliver a national health service in east Kent of which he can be proud. Controversies often surround such issues. That is why decisions are taken only after careful consultation and consideration.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I suppose that if 50 per cent. are unanimous, the other half take a different view. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to bring down and keep down waiting lists is to abolish the nonsense of the internal market, to sustain investment in the health service and to modernise it? The only people who can expect to gain from the Conservatives' policies are those who can afford to buy their treatment.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is correct: we need to get our priorities right. One of the Government's priorities has been to save £1 billion from the bureaucracy associated with the internal market and to plough it into patient care so that we can treat more patients. He will be aware that the Conservative party proposes to remove £340 million from the money that is invested to treat people on the waiting list, which would cut something like 310,000 operations for cataracts, hernias, knees, hips and so on. That is music to the ears of those who wish to promote private insurance, but a great concern to his constituents and to mine.

Dr. Liam Fox: In its 1997 manifesto, Labour said that it would take
100,000 people off waiting lists
and cut the cost of bureaucracy. Will the Minister confirm that his Department's figures show that the cost of running the Department of Health has increased by £30 million? Contrary to the impression that he just tried to give the House, the total number of patients waiting—in-patients plus out-patients—has increased by 93,000 in


England and Wales. Can he spare us the spin for once, admit that the figures are correct and tell us that Labour has failed on both its main pledges?

Mr. Denham: No, I shall not do that because the truth is that, when we were elected in 1997, about which the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, in-patient and out-patient waiting lists were going up. This Government have successfully turned the corner on both those waiting lists. In-patient lists are down by more than we promised in the manifesto and out-patient waiting times are also falling. Over the past year, for the first time since records began, both in-patient and out-patient lists have been falling.

Oral Answers to Questions — Coronary Heart Disease

Ms Ruth Kelly: If he will make a statement about his plans to cut the incidence of coronary heart disease. [156288]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We have made investment in treating coronary heart disease and its prevention a priority. There are more heart specialists and more heart operations, and there is more help for people to give up smoking—the biggest avoidable cause of death from heart disease.

Ms Kelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who have a family member with heart disease are four times more likely to suffer the same disease themselves? In the light of that fact, will he congratulate the British Heart Foundation, which has visited more than 40 towns and cities to publicise that issue? Does he agree that raising awareness of heart disease is incredibly important in combating it?

Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The British Heart Foundation plays a very important role, not just in public education but in the support that it offers families who are hit by this dreadful disease. Heart disease is the biggest killer in the country; it kills around 150,000 people a year. I know that the BHF is looking to launch a major research programme into the genetics behind heart disease, and that is welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the recent announcements of my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. An extra £71 million is to be invested, jointly with the Higher Education Funding Council and the Wellcome Trust, in some of these areas.
I notice that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was quoted in the papers this morning as saying that the £71 million is being spent on the treatment of phobias. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is, for example, for research at the university of Oxford into computer simulation to aid better treatment and drugs for heart disease and diabetes; for research at the university of Glasgow into genes that trigger conditions such as depression, asthma and cancer; and certainly for research, in places such as Nottingham and University college, London, into human brain disorders including schizophrenia, autism and memory decline among the elderly. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that, unlike the hon. Gentleman.
While I am referring to the hon. Gentleman, I might add that I would have thought he would welcome research into phobias; after all, it could be helpful for the

Conservative party, given the prevalence of Europhobia, homophobia and xenophobia among some of those on the Conservative Benches.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is the Secretary of State aware of the unequivocal support of my constituents who have suffered from the most serious form of coronary heart disease for the Wythenshawe heart transplant centre, which is under threat of closure? Is he aware that that is a centre of excellence, the work of which is most highly valued throughout the north-west? Its location is easily accessible for patients from south of Manchester, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Milburn: Keep it in the family, as they say.
On the serious issue that the hon. Lady raises, as she knows, the Department and Ministers have received representations not only from people in the north-west, which we take very seriously, but from colleagues in Sheffield and Birmingham too. Some difficult decisions will have to be taken, and they must be informed by the best clinical advice that we can get. She is aware of some of the clinical issues around these matters. As yet, Ministers have not received formal advice. I hope that we can make the right decision as soon as we are able, but, in the meantime, we hear the representations.

Angela Smith: I know that the Secretary of State is aware that prevention and early intervention are key to tackling heart disease and greatly reduce the risk. Does he therefore accept that creating health awareness at a young age is the key? Will he strengthen links between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health to ensure that sports education in schools is given very high priority?

Mr. Milburn: That is very important. There are certain things that we need to do in the short term, and things that we must do in the longer term. There is more that we can do in the short term to increase the number of cardiologists, cardio-thoracic surgeons and heart operations, and that is happening, but the greatest gain in tackling coronary heart disease will come from improved prevention, rather than improved treatment. As my hon. Friend says, sport in schools is incredibly important, as is diet among school children. She is aware that we have introduced an initiative to provide free fruit to children in school for the first time. It is hugely welcome in the schools where it has been tried out, and I have no doubt that in the longer term it will bring great benefit in terms of health gain, not just among the children who receive a free piece of school fruit, but among their families.

Dr. Liam Fox: The Secretary of State will be aware that figures show that failure to screen adequately means that up to 30 per cent. of coronary care beds in the United Kingdom are occupied by patients who do not have a cardiac problem. In the Government's overall strategy, what is the place of Troponin testing, and what are the Government's plans?

Mr. Milburn: We need to do more not just in respect of screening, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, to ensure that when patients are referred by their general practitioner to hospital, they are treated as quickly as possible. That is


why we have established 130 rapid-access chest pain clinics—first, to ensure that the people who need heart treatment get it as quickly as possible and, secondly, to screen out the people who do not have heart disease but who might have some other form of chest pain. That is what the rapid-access chest pain clinics are doing. They are widely available in many hospitals across the country and by 2003 they will be available in all hospitals. If the hon. Gentleman is as serious as he says he is about tackling coronary heart disease and improving cardiac care, I hope that he agrees that it was a fundamental mistake of the Government of which he was a member not to earmark a single penny piece for improvement in heart services.

Oral Answers to Questions — Carers

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about co-ordination of health and social services policy to support carers. [156289]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The national service frameworks for mental health, older people and coronary heart disease will help to ensure greater attention to carers' needs across the NHS and social services. The additional flexibility introduced by the Health Act 1999, together with the new powers to establish care trusts, will also lead to closer integration of health and social care. By 2003–04, an additional 75,000 carers will benefit from extra services.

Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more has been done to support carers in the first four years of this Government than at any other time in the past, and that with the national carers strategy, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and the increase in social security benefits for carers introduced this week, there is a significant improvement in provision for the 9,000 carers in Monmouthshire? Given that the Conservative party has made no commitment to match the Government's commitment to social services spending, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which is to be introduced by local authorities later this year, would be jeopardised?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes some important points. It is worth quoting Diana Whitworth, the chief executive of the Carers National Association, on the publication of the recent national service framework for the elderly. She said of the policies in that document:
Carers have often been marginalised or excluded by healthcare professionals. The NSF"—
that is, the national service framework—
promises to tackle that once and for all.
That is just one example of the endorsement of the extra investment in financial support and services for carers that the Government have introduced. My hon. Friend is right to say that all that is threatened by the Conservative party's refusal to promise to match our investment in social services.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in praising the service provided by the minor injuries unit and respite care beds at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield? Will he finally end the confusion that has

reigned for the past three years regarding the future of the Victoria hospital? Will he say once and for all that the Victoria hospital will remain open?

Mr. Denham: Few people have done more to create a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the Lichfield hospital than the hon. Gentleman. What I can say to him and to other hon. Members is that the investment that the Government will make in support for carers, as well as that which we are making in intermediate care, provides the best guarantee of continuing good provision of community facilities for those who need care and respite care. He will understand that all that is threatened by some of the policies that he supports.

Oral Answers to Questions — Smoking (Young People)

Mr. David Taylor: What progress is being made in preventing young people from taking up smoking. [156290]

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): The most recent evidence shows that smoking rates among children aged from 11 to 15 fell from 13 per cent. in 1996 to 9 per cent. in 1999, while adult smoking levels also fell. However, smoking rates among 16 to 19-year-olds rose between 1992 and 1998. That is why the Government have put in place a broad strategy to cut deaths from smoking, including the banning of tobacco advertising, which has a significant impact on smoking among children and young people.

Mr. Taylor: In the next 24 hours, 500 British teenagers will, on average, take a decade off their lives by taking up smoking. Is my hon Friend convinced that we can reduce that dreadful toll by hitting the targets set out in the 1998 White Paper, "Smoking Kills"? Will she introduce a national scheme to provide children with proof-of-age cards, which have been successful in parts of Leicestershire and elsewhere in reducing under-age tobacco sales? Will she read the Hansard record for 24 April, when my ten-minute Bill will be debated, and take the opportunity to review those topics?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that smoking has a huge impact on health. We have already made progress on under-16s, but we have considerably more to do. He mentioned proof-of-age cards, which can play an important part in enforcement strategies to cut under-age sales. We are keen to encourage the sort of programme that has been initiated in Leicestershire, and we shall consider his proposals in detail.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Given the appalling increase since the Government came to power in the number of teenagers who smoke illegally imported tobacco, is not it one of the worst cases of Government mismanagement that they increase taxes on tobacco while failing to increase the services and Customs and Excise men to stop the smuggling? It is their fault that these teenagers are now smoking illegal cigarettes.

Yvette Cooper: I must point out that smuggling is a serious problem not only in this country, but in Italy, which has low duty rates. Smuggling is a problem of organised crime and not of duty rates. That is exactly why the


Government are investing more than £200 million over three years in tackling smuggling. The hon. Gentleman's party has not pledged to match that investment. The Conservatives may have made commitments in respect of investing in the health service, but I should point out that, unless they can match our investment in tackling smuggling, as well as in personal social services, they will not have the impact on health and on saving lives that is needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Social Inequalities

Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on social inequalities in health. [156291]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Across the Government, there is a commitment to tackle health inequalities. For the first time, new national targets have been set to reduce the health gap among children and between geographical areas. We have backed that commitment with extra resources for the poorest parts of the country.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the research published by Dr. Richard Mitchell and Professor Daniel Dorling of the university of Leeds, and Dr. Mary Shaw of the university of Bristol, which suggests that about 7,500 lives a year could be saved among people under the age of 65 if inequalities in wealth were to decrease? Does he therefore agree, unlike the previous Government, that reducing poverty has as big a part to play in reducing health inequalities as the improvements in primary health care to which he is committed?

Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. As all hon. Members know from their constituencies, there is a direct relationship between poverty, deprivation and ill health. That is irrefutably the case. We also know from the statistics that a child born today into the poorest family in the land will, on average, live 10 years less than a child born into the richest family in the land, which, for most people, is an unacceptable state of affairs that must change. We know what the attitude of previous Governments has been. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) summed it up neatly when he said:
all we hear from the Opposition
the Labour party
is poverty, poverty, poverty, la, la, la & It is just boring for Conservative Members."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 636.]
It might be boring for the hon. Gentleman, but it is a fact of life for millions of our fellow citizens, which we came into politics to change.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many social inequalities are caused by variable waiting lists? Will he address the sort of problem that is faced by constituents of mine who have to wait significantly longer for their treatment at the New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton than those who live in Wolverhampton itself? That is a real social inequality, which needs addressing.

Mr. Milburn: We must ensure that people, wherever they live, whatever their background and regardless of

their ability to pay, receive the right treatment when they need it. Sadly, that is not a position to which the Conservative party is committed.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Nowhere are social inequalities in health more apparent than in my constituency, mainly as a result of historical underfunding under the previous Government. Even now, because of the difficulties in my area, my local health authority faces yet another deficit in its health budget of about £3 million. I plead once again with my right hon. Friend to reconsider the funding of Barnsley health authority, whose funding is one of the lowest in the country, to try to alleviate some of those problems.

Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, not only Barnsley health authority but health authorities throughout the country will receive extra investment. He will also be aware that we are committed to changing the way in which cash is distributed within the NHS to ensure that it is much more geared to tackling such appalling health inequalities. In the meantime, we have made £130 million available to 50 or so health authorities with the highest incidence of early deaths and high morbidity from some of the diseases that we have been discussing today, including coronary heart disease and cancer.
We have a simple choice: we can either continue to do what has been done in the past and wring our hands at the dreadful facts around inequalities, regret those facts and say that, in the end, trickle-down economics will hit the poorest communities and the poorest people, or recognise, as the Government do, that we must learn from history that trickle-down economics have failed and have not benefited the poorest people in the poorest communities. We can then redouble our effort to do what Governments for many a generation should have done, which is to improve the nation's health overall and improve the health of the poorest people fastest.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister share my worry about the social consequences in communities of CJD outbreaks? Is he aware that the national surveillance unit has just identified a number of clusters throughout the kingdom, including in my constituency, but its preliminary investigations have shown no strong links? I am anxious that there should be a detailed investigation into the causal links between the cases in my constituency. Does he agree that it is vital that such detailed investigations are carried out as quickly as possible, first to identify causal links and, secondly and most importantly, to allay the concerns of those in larger communities who are frightened by that terrifying disease?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a terrifying disease. The national variant CJD surveillance unit does a good job and, where there are outbreaks or clusters, we must try to find out why. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in Queniborough in Leicestershire, research was carried out into the background factors that led to a cluster of deaths from variant CJD. If there are other clusters, we shall want to consider background causes. We must do that because we


have to get to the bottom of why these things are happening and, hopefully, in the future, be in a better position to do something about them.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the inequalities in health provision in rural areas such as my constituency? Will he confirm that, in future, hospitals such as Whitby community hospital will be a focal point for dealing with inequalities in dentistry provision and eyesight problems, and that they will form a key plank in our strategy for tackling inequalities in rural areas?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a good point. All too often, we perceive health inequalities in terms of the concentration of poverty and deprivation in inner-city or urban areas such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) mentioned. However, as we all know from our constituencies, there are also large concentrations of poverty, deprivation and ill health in rural areas. I therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) a firm assurance that, when the new formula for distributing cash across the national health service is introduced in 2003, it will have a particular perspective on the way in which we recognise the needs of rural communities.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Service Framework (Older People)

Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the national service framework for older people. [156292]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are determined to improve the quality and range of NHS and social care services for older people. The national service framework, which was published last month, will ensure fair, high-quality, integrated health and social care services for older people. It sets new standards to help root out age discrimination and drive up the quality of care. Implementation of the new standards will be carefully monitored.

Dr. Cable: May I welcome the framework and ask the Minister how, and over what time scale, he envisages the removal of age discrimination from the NHS? How would the framework apply to my constituent, a 71-year-old lady who is marooned in Kingston hospital after a serious stroke? She cannot be moved because the nearest and most appropriate stroke rehabilitation unit, the Wolfson unit, operates a strict age bar and admits no one who is over 65.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the objective that we aim to achieve through the national service framework. I have been advised that the Wolfson unit does not set age-based criteria for admission as he suggests. I understand that it recently treated a 92-year-old in similar circumstances to his constituent. We have clearly set out in the national service framework that we want all age-based eligibility rules to be reviewed by October this year and the necessary action taken as soon as possible after that.
The hon. Gentleman is a man of good will, and he will understand that it will take time to put right the years of neglect and indifference that we inherited from the

previous Administration. We are determined to do that. Older people are the largest users of NHS services and often the biggest supporters of the NHS. It is time for the Government and Parliament to pay proper attention to their needs in the NHS.

Ms Joan Walley: I thank my hon. Friend for taking such action. It is long overdue and it will make a genuine difference to older people, especially those who suffer strokes and from osteoporosis. Will he work closely with modernisation action in the NHS to ensure that there will be money to enable us to take advantage of the framework and implement it properly where need is greatest?

Mr. Hutton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we have a big task ahead of us in converting the aspirations of the national service framework into tangible improvements on the ground and in the front line. The national service framework has made some important declarations about improvements in stroke care services. They have been strongly welcomed by the Stroke Association, which has worked closely with us to develop the framework. It is a big job and we intend to work closely with all the key partners who have helped us to develop the standards and, of course, with the NHS and social services.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the national service framework will be little more than fine-sounding words if we continue to lose intermediate care beds at the current rate? Why have we lost 50,000 such beds in the care home sector in the past 12 months? What will he do about it?

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is wrong; 50,000 beds have not been lost in the care home sector. Between 7,000 and 8,000 beds have been lost in that sector over the period that he mentioned. [Interruption.] Those are the figures. It is clear to Labour Members that Conservative Members hate being confronted with the truth about issues. However, we intend to deal with them. The number of intermediate care beds in the NHS is set to increase, and it is very important that it does so.
The hon. Gentleman will also want to reflect on the fact that an important part of the extra investment in intermediate care services will be local government investment through social services. I know that he does not like this, but let me remind him that his lectures on the subject are utterly bogus unless and until his hon. Friends can agree to match our spending on social services. They have been given numerous opportunities to do that, but they have never to this date said that they will match our spending

Oral Answers to Questions — Children's Hospices

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will take steps to ensure that children's hospices receive the same level of funding as adult hospices in future allocations. [156294]

Mr. Peter Bradley: What new resources are to be provided for existing children's hospices. [156295]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Children's hospices have the same access to health service funding as adult hospices. We are increasing funding for the provision of palliative care services and expect children's hospices to benefit thereby. In addition, funding will be available later this year from the new opportunities fund, specifically for services in support of children with life-threatening illnesses, including those provided by children's hospices.

Mr. Hoyle: It is an interesting answer. My hon. Friend may be aware of the excellent work done by Derian house in my constituency, which treats children not only from the north-west but from other regions. It is a very specialist children's hospice. Is she aware that children's hospices are the poor relations when it comes to funding, and that they received only £25,000, which is not acceptable? I put down a challenge to my hon. Friend: please will she personally look into the funding of children's hospices and ensure that there is a big improvement in what they receive? I know that we could work together for the benefit of children's hospices.

Ms Stuart: Not only am I happy to take up that challenge but I have in front of me details of Derian house, and I am aware of the good work that it does. We have to ensure that children's hospice provision is developed in a strategic way, and that is why we have set up a regional group. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage the hospice in his constituency to take part in that review. We have also made new funds available. The new opportunities funding that was announced recently by the Department for Culture. Media and Sport will make available about £300 million to spend on health initiatives. We envisage that about £48 million will be available over the next three years to provide palliative care for children with life-threatening and life-limiting illnesses. I hope that he will encourage the hospice to be part of that process to ensure that strategic care is provided in his area.

Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the Shropshire and Mid Wales adult hospice and the Hope House children's hospice, which serves my community. They, and the hospice movement in general, welcomed the announcement of additional funding made by the Secretary of State last October, but six months later they are still seeking clarity. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new resources will meet the needs not only of new initiatives in children's hospice provision but of existing hospices? Will she also confirm that a contribution will be made towards core funding, as well as new initiatives at those hospices? The hospices have been waiting a long time for the clarity that they seek, and they need some assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister so that they can plan for the future.

Ms Stuart: Of course; that is why the directions laid down for the bidding for new opportunities funding will provide exactly what my hon. Friend asks for. I have looked at the provisions for Hope House hospice and I note that the secretary of its association is a member of the children's taskforce and is playing a key role in the Association of Children's Hospices. I know from a meeting today that the association is satisfied that the

current arrangements will allow hospices to plan for the future in the best interests of the children who need and deserve that care.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Minister ensure that some of the extra money will go towards paying for the complementary therapists who do so much in hospices such as the Loros in Leicestershire? Now that the Government have helpfully published the response to the Lords report on complementary medicine, will she pledge perhaps £100,000 towards research?
Will the Minister have a word with a counterpart of hers? If homeopathy is good enough for humans, is it not good enough for animals in the foot and mouth disease crisis? Will she have a word with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Ms Stuart: I have long since stopped thinking of supplementary questions from the hon. Gentleman; I think of complementary questions. He is aware that homeopathy has played a significant role in palliative care. We shall continue to look at that and take it forward.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that, in Southend, where for many years we have had a wonderful hospice called Fair Havens and where, more recently, a children's hospice has opened, although we raise increasing sums every year to help the hospice, because the percentage of funding covered by public funds is being reduced, the burden is becoming greater every year? Does she not feel that there might be a case for a proper review by the Department of the percentage funding carried by the Government for both adult and children's hospices, because the percentage is genuinely going down and the burden on the community is continuing to increase?

Ms Stuart: I am aware that we need to increase the total amount of funding available for palliative care. That is why we made £50 million available for both adults and children. However, as I said earlier, children's hospices in particular have developed in a non-strategic way, so we need to ensure that each region has proper provision. Within that, children's hospices will bid for both health improvement money and new opportunities funding, so that we can strike the right balance between what is raised from the voluntary sector and what the NHS provides. That will vary from area to area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001.
Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Act 2001.
Election Publications Act 2001.
Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
Elections Act 2001.
Kent County Council Act 2001.
Medway Council Act 2001.
Churchwardens Measure 2001.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite Government assurances to the contrary, I have been receiving reports all morning from Gentleshaw in my constituency and from elsewhere that people delivering census forms have been walking in sensitive areas—in farms and along country lanes—and so risking spreading foot and mouth disease still further in my part of Staffordshire. There must be some mechanism by which, if that continues throughout the recess, I can make formal contact with Government Departments to ensure either that Government guidelines are kept to—namely, that the forms are delivered by post—or, as I would prefer, given that the Prime Minister has decided to postpone the county elections for a month because of foot and mouth disease, that the census application forms will also be delayed for at least a month, or until the foot and mouth outbreak is over. What mechanisms are there during the recess, other than a phone call or letter, whereby I can report the transgressions that are spreading foot and mouth disease?

Mr. Speaker: I would say that phone calls are the best mechanism. There is nothing to beat a phone call in these circumstances.

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the custodian of our liberties, could you ask a Law Officer of the Crown to come to the House today to make a statement on the implications for British justice of the extraordinary conviction of a freedom-loving Englishman in Sunderland for selling produce in the measures of his birth? It is a matter of grave significance for freedoms in our country.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you possibly miss a Bill when you read out the list of Bills that have been given Royal Assent? Did you not miss the regulation of PR companies Bill?

Mr. Speaker: No.

BILL PRESENTED

CRYSTAL PALACE

Mr. Geraint Davies, supported by Mr. Stephen Twigg and Ms Oona King, presented a Bill to transfer the Crystal Palace and Park to the Greater London Authority; to restrict commercial uses of the said land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 84].

Regulation of Debt Management and Credit Repair Services

Mr. David Ames: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to give the Director General of Fair Trading a duty to establish a Code of Practice for traders who offer consumers the services of debt management and credit repair; and for connected purposes.
I came into some money at the weekend, when I was one of the tiny number of those who won on the grand national. Unfortunately, my stake of £2 each way did not yield winnings sufficient to service adequately the huge debt that has been incurred by people across the United Kingdom. However, I believe that the largely unregulated way in which the current system works allows the most vulnerable sectors of society to be led slightly astray by some advertisements, particularly in tabloid newspapers.
If my Bill were to become law, traders would be obliged to comply with a code, and the Director General of Fair Trading would be given powers to enforce compliance with it by use of compliance orders, fines and compensation orders. The Bill would also ensure that, before publishing the code, the director general is required to consult representatives of consumers and those who are likely to be affected by it. The code would be published and widely disseminated.
The Bill would prescribe the issues to be addressed in the code of practice, including the advertising and marketing of personal debt services; the terms on which such services are provided; charges; the standards of services to be provided by the trader; arrangements in debt management services for the protection of client moneys; arrangements for ensuring the competence of the trader's staff; procedures for handling complaints from consumers; and any other such matters as the director general, having consulted, considers necessary and appropriate for the protection of consumers' interests.
I know that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is interested in the issue because I recently had the good fortune to attend a meeting that he hosted and at which I engaged in conversation with representatives of citizens advice bureaux. I decided to persuade the House of the Bill's merits largely because of those conversations.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux recently published a report, entitled "Daylight Robbery", that highlights the fact that consumer credit borrowing has increased dramatically in the past 20 years. In the past 21 years, there has been a revolution in the consumer credit industry. As of August 2000, outstanding unsecured consumer credit in the United Kingdom amounted to £122 billion. It is a huge sum, equivalent to £3,425 for every adult between 18 and 65 in the United Kingdom.
Consumers' enthusiasm—I do not criticize them for it—to buy now and pay later has been matched by credit companies' willingness to devise an ever greater range of credit products. In the past two years, citizens advice bureaux across the country have reported a 37 per cent. increase in the number of inquiries on consumer credit debts. In the past 10 years, citizens advice bureaux and other free advice agencies have seen an increase in the number of commercial companies offering services for a fee to those who are in debt. Undoubtedly the number of such companies has mushroomed.
Since deciding to promote this Bill, I have been inundated by letters from people describing their debt problems. However, as I said, although I came into money at the weekend, I am afraid that my £86.50 will not be sufficient to service all their debts. Nevertheless, I should like to share one example with the House. One person, whom I shall call "client A", has one dependent child. The client contacted a debt management company for help with debts of £25,000, and the company told the client that creditors would accept offers of £1 per month. However, when bailiffs began to call at the client's home, the client discovered that no agreement had been reached with creditors.
The client went to the CAB for advice. The CAB adviser discovered that the client's total debt was £51,000. When the CAB spoke to the client's creditors, it found that the debt management company had not made any arrangements with creditors. The creditors told the adviser that they would rather deal with the CAB than with a debt management company. I am delighted to say that, as a result, the CAB has the client's debt under control.
The National Consumer Council contacted me, saying:
People are often at their most vulnerable when needing debt management services. To feel confident in using them, they need clear information about the choices available in the market place"—
this is what I am asking the Minister to consider—
and also to know what to expect from both fee charging and free services.
The NCC believes:
debt management services should be properly regulated".
I am also indebted to the Sunday Express. A journalist there called Rachel Baird has, for the last few weeks, written a series of articles headed "Debt 'Parasites' Spark Crusade", in which she has reported the experiences of all sorts of people who—sadly—have got into debt, panicked and gone to some of the companies that I am describing, with very unfortunate effects.
The company Direct Line has contacted me to say that it
is concerned many consumers are using the services of these agencies without being fully aware of the potential consequences and costs. Often, it would be more effective for the consumer, and in their best long-term interests, to deal directly with the lender".

Direct Line is concerned about misleading advertising, hidden costs, the impact on credit rating, failure to take the full financial situation into account, and long-term costs.
Equidebt is another company that has contacted me. It speaks of a breed of cash flow managers targeting vulnerable people who want up-front payment of some sort. It says that such managers want to make money out of such people. The Finance and Leasing Association also contacted me.
As we all know, there are many advertisements for such services in the newspapers. They say, for instance, "Debt Problems? Money Worries?", offer "unsecured personal loans", and make such statements as
We could arrange you a mortgage fast!
Perhaps many of those companies are responsible; perhaps the majority give good advice. Unfortunately, according to the citizens advice bureaux, not all of them do.
Many of the advertisements suggest that, for a fee, companies advertising credit repair services can wipe the slate clean for those who have got into money difficulties in the past and had court judgments recorded against them. That is nonsense.
There is a real need for consumers to be protected from the services of debt management and credit repair companies. Those needing such protection are undoubtedly the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. I hope that the House will support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Simon Burns, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Roger Gale, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Mike Hancock, Ms Oona King, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. David Wilshire.

REGULATION OF DEBT MANAGEMENT AND CREDIT REPAIR SERVICES

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to give the Director General of Fair Trading a duty to establish a Code of Practice for traders who offer consumers the services of debt management and credit repair; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 85].

Points of Order

Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House goes into recess this afternoon, and during the next 12 days it is certain that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be questioned about the foot and mouth disease crisis. To measure the progress that has been made in overcoming the crisis, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was—until last Thursday—Publishing daily figures for the number of animals authorised for slaughter, the number being slaughtered and the number of carcases disposed of. However, when I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday whether that daily publication would continue during the recess, he was unable to give an answer during the hour and a half that he spent in the House.
Do you, Mr. Speaker, have further reassurance from MAFF that the information will be made available to hon. Members? That is essential if they are to answer the proper concerns of their constituents during the recess. If the information is not available, we shall not be able to judge whether the crisis is getting worse or better. I hope that the Minister will give you an assurance before the House rises that the information will be available.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday I allowed the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to run for an hour and a half, so that everyone concerned could closely examine the case that the right hon. Gentleman put. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that the Minister will have heard his comments and will—I have no doubt—take serious note of what he said.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have indeed been extremely helpful to the House over the foot and mouth crisis. Many times in the past, the suggestion has been made that Members should be able to table written questions during the recess for written answer. I do not know whether it is within your discretion to allow that during the forthcoming recess; I accept that it may not be. However, if it is, will you allow it? If it is not, will you be kind enough to refer the matter to the appropriate Committees so that perhaps, in future, we may have the chance to put such questions?

Mr. Speaker: Questions can be tabled, but they are not answered. The matter has been looked at by the appropriate Committee; I understand that it is still being examined. Until the Committee comes up with an answer, I can have no discretion in the matter.

Orders of the Day — International Development Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): I beg to move,
That in the Order of 6th March (International Development Bill (Programme)) the following be substituted for paragraphs 4 and 5—
4. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
5. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Three o'clock.
5A. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Four o'clock.
The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the International Development Bill be completed in the House today. It is supplementary to the programme motion approved for the Committee stage, which finished on 15 March.
The Bill is important, but it is also short, simple and uncontroversial. We have already spent about 16 hours debating it—Seven on Second Reading and nine in Committee—and have covered a great deal of the ground. I hope that our debate today will be similarly constructive and that, to that end, we shall not spend too much time debating the programme motion. I commend the motion to the House and will set an example by sitting down.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I certainly do not want to detain the House for too long on the programme motion—frankly, there is precious little time this afternoon to discuss some important amendments to an important Bill. However, the Minister would not expect me to let him off the hook quite that lightly. It is important to record—Yet again—some important points of principle about the way that the Government whistle legislation through the House without proper scrutiny or consideration.
The Bill was printed on 15 February this year. Second Reading took place on 6 March. The Bill went into Committee on 12 March and was out again on 15 March. When it came out of Committee, several important new clauses—some of them drafted by me—had not been considered. In one sense, the Minister is right to say that the Bill is relatively uncontroversial. However, because it sets out the framework for international development—probably for many years to come; the previous Act of this type was in force for 21 years—it is essential that we get it right. The Conservatives and other hon. Members have raised important points that we want the Government to consider.
Today, we have two hours to consider 12 important amendments—one or two of which are fundamental to the essence of the Bill. That is not enough time. However, our main complaint about the programme motion, as you will know, Mr. Speaker—I suspect that you have heard this speech once or twice since Christmas—is one of principle. These newfangled programme motions are being imposed on the House of Commons by a heavy-handed Government using their massive majority.


The result is that debate is stifled and insufficient scrutiny given to legislation. We all know that that means that legislation will be less good than it would otherwise be.
In this case, the community of non-governmental organisations has not had time to study the Bill properly, nor had an opportunity to make its comments on the Bill known to us. There has not been enough time during the Bill's consideration to tease out important points from the Government.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government increased the allocation of time for Report, it would be possible to incorporate in the Bill the terms of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention against bribery in international business dealings, thereby answering the consistent call of Her Majesty's Opposition and the recent request of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of the many failings of the Government in the last 12 months that they have failed to introduce important anti-bribery legislation, despite a commitment from a Minister in April 2000 to do so at the earliest opportunity. The earliest opportunity came in the Queen's Speech in the autumn; it came and it went. The legislation was not in the Queen's Speech and there is insufficient time to insert it into the Bill that we are considering today.
I ask the Government again to reconsider programme motions. They clearly are not a great success and there is no point in driving through legislation if it later turns out to be bad legislation because of insufficient time.
Members of Parliament are all in this place for a number of reasons. We are here to represent our constituents—that is important. We are here for some of us to become members of Governments and shadow Governments. But above all, we are here as Members of Parliament to make law. That is what our constituents think they send us here for. Perhaps we are becoming too much like glorified social workers now, but we are really here to make law.
It is important that there is consensus across the Chamber on the rules of procedure by which we seek to make and improve law. There are 659 of us in the House, all of us having the incredible privilege of being one of a small number of people in this country who can make legislation. What a great privilege and onerous responsibility that is. The onus therefore is on the Government to ensure that our rules of law making are fair, and that they give proper time for scrutiny, and proper time for Her Majesty's Opposition to consider things properly. That is not the case with this programme motion. For those reasons, I wish to register our firm opposition to it.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall speak briefly in opposition to the programme motion and to echo many of the points of the Conservative spokesman. The Minister is right that the Bill is simple, short and relatively uncontroversial, and it will remain uncontroversial if we do not get much opportunity to add anything to it.
As the Minister said, the Bill has had 16 hours of scrutiny, but I emphasise that Report is one of the few opportunities that ordinary Back Benchers, especially

Back Benchers from minority parties, have to table amendments and hear them debated. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so this afternoon, but I believe that, in guaranteeing only an hour and a half for Report, the Government have done a disservice to their own Bill.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Would we not all have more time to debate important amendments to the Bill if we stopped talking about the programme motion and got on with it?

Mr. Thomas: I do not accept that point at all. It is right and proper that we challenge the Government when they table programme motions such as this one. This is only the second time that I have spoken in a debate on a programme motion; I do not make it a habit. I do make it a habit, as I believe that the hon. Lady does, to oppose programme motions, because in drafting those motions the Government never allow sufficient time for debate.
I do not oppose programming on principle. If we allow enough time for Back Benchers to speak and for scrutiny of the different clauses, we should be able to reform the House, and should have a proper amount of time to go through every clause, but that does not mean that we should sit mute when the Government move an inappropriate programme motion. After Report and Third Reading, we shall have an Adjournment debate on matters to be considered before the Easter recess, which is a nice tradition in the House but less important than the vital job of legislation. We have got our priorities slightly wrong, and it is appropriate to take the opportunity to say so.
This is an important Bill, and there are some important issues that need scrutiny, especially in the first group of amendments on the Bill's objectives. For that reason, I did not intend to speak for more than a couple minutes but it was important to make our views known.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I was surprised by the comment made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), because she seemed to blame those hon. Members who want to make a couple of perfectly serious points on the programme motion. Under this procedure, every minute that we use to debate the programme motion comes out of the total debate, and that is unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said that we have about two hours to discuss all 10 amendments; but, of course, we will only have two hours if we have a very short programme motion debate. That puts us under intolerable pressure and is not a fair way to proceed.
The Minister defeated his own argument by saying that the Bill is non-controversial. It is non-controversial, but with such a Bill, it is right and proper for the Government to agree with the Opposition, through the usual channels, exactly how much time is needed. Perhaps two hours may be enough, or perhaps three hours would be right, but narrow time limits have been imposed without explanation. The Minister made no attempt to explain why we must finish this business by 4 o'clock, especially given that all that follows is the Easter Adjournment debate, so there is no rhyme or reason for doing so. The Government are simply determined to table programme motions on everything.
There are 10 amendments in four groups. If we debated each amendment for the same time, we would spend about 10 to 12 minutes on each. The Bill may not be controversial, but while a Bill may be non-controversial in a party political sense, people may still have serious points of view. International development is vital to many people outside the House. They are concerned about poverty in the third world and want Parliament to have a serious debate. They may well look askance at a Parliament that, on average, devotes only 12 minutes to each amendment.
Perhaps some of the amendments need no debate at all, but for the Government arbitrarily to lay down such a time limit on such a Bill damages the political process and the parliamentary process. The programme motion is unfair, and I regret and oppose it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I had not planned to take part in this debate, but having been present during the whole debate on Second Reading and having served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I thought that it might be appropriate to say a few words. I might even persuade the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that he protests too much.
I refer the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), as well as his colleagues, to the Official Report of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. I genuinely invite them to consider whether the Committee's time, which they protested earlier was not enough, was used in the best interests of the Bill and the procedures of the House. I shall offer them a few examples of the kind of trivia that the Committee had to consider for two days, although I concede that everything that was said must have been in order or the Chairman would have ruled it out of order.
As reported in column 6, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) thought it right to tell us the story, yet again, of David and Goliath—all very interesting. As reported in column 8, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) lectured my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on his girth. Later, as the discussions continued, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who normally makes constructive contributions, asked the Committee to focus on the need to export abroad, as he put it. Elizabeth Filkin. Those subjects are fascinating, but whether they help the Bill or international development is another matter entirely.
We then moved on to the bizarre events of the afternoon of Thursday 15 March. All the members of the Committee assembled for our fourth sitting at 2.30 pm, but the Chairman, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), was not there. He was half an hour late, and without the assistance of one of my hon. Friends, who started the Committee proceedings seven minutes late, we would have been delayed still further. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham then took another seven minutes to complain that we did not have enough time.
We are being told by the Opposition today that Parliament is being short-changed. However, if one reads columns 81 to 82 and 88 to 89 of the report of the Committee proceedings, one will find that we had an

exchange on contact lenses, the work of opticians generally and the wonderful merits of hormone replacement therapy. I found that fascinating, but we were supposed to be making progress on the Bill and the important subjects that it covers, so was that a sensible use of our parliamentary time? I can tell the hon. Member for South-West Devon that I certainly did not think so.
At the heart of the Bill lies the need to challenge poverty internationally. The Bill is a move in the right direction, and I would do the House no further service if I did not sit down now and allow it to continue with its important business.

Mr. Bowen Wells: The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) was making the case of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he spoke as he did about the Committee stage. It was perfectly possible for the Government and the Opposition to agree between them how much time the Bill needed. As I understand it, no consultation took place, and the result was that because the Opposition rightly oppose the whole concept of programming consideration of Bills, we had the kind of discussion about which the right hon. Gentleman complains. I have only read those exchanges—I did not participate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is right when he complains that we do not have sufficient time this afternoon properly to discuss the important questions on the Bill. It is a disgrace to Parliament; it is the wrong way to proceed, and we should not be in this position. The Bill deals with substantial matters of practical importance, not the party political issues between us. We need to understand and properly debate them. However, we have so organised Parliament that that will not happen. I only hope that in the time now left to us we can have an important, reasonable and sensible debate.
Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 75.

Division No. 185]
[1.4 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Burgon, Colin



Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cann, Jamie


Austin, John
Caplin, Ivor


Bailey, Adrian
Caton, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blizzard, Bob
Clelland, David


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Clwyd, Ann



Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coleman, Iain


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony






Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cranston, Ross
Joyce, Eric


Crausby, David
Kaufman, Flt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cummings, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Khabra, Piara S


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davidson, Ian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lammy, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Laxton, Bob


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher


Dean, Mrs Janet
Levitt, Tom


Denham, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dismore, Andrew
Lock, David


Dobbin, Jim
Love, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H
McCabe, Steve


Dowd, Jim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Drew, David
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McIsaac, S[...]ona


Edwards, Huw
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
McNulty, Tony


Etherington, Bill
Mactaggart, Fiona


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McWilliam, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Mallaber, Judy


Flint, Caroline
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gardiner, Barry
Miller, Andrew


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Mitchell, Austin


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A
Mullin, Chris


Goggins, Paul
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
O'Hara, Eddie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Olner, Bill


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Grocott, Bruce
Pearson, Ian


Hain, Peter
Perham, Ms Linda


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pickthall, Colin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pike, Peter L


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Pope, Greg


Healey, John
Pound, Stephen


Hendrick, Mark
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hepburn, Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Heppell, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hill, Keith
Prosser, Gwyn


Hinchliffe, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Hood, Jimmy
Rapson, Syd


Hope, Phil
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Howells, Dr Kim
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rowlands, Ted


Humble, Mrs Joan
Roy, Frank


Illsley, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jenkins, Brian
Ryan, Ms Joan





Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Skinner, Dennis
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woodward, Shaun


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Don Touhig and Mr. David Jamieson.


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy





NOES


Allan, Richard
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Amess, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Moore, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Bercow, John
Oaten, Mark


Blunt, Crispin
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Ottaway, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Page, Richard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Paterson, Owen


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burns, Simon
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Burstow, Paul
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ruffley, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Sanders, Adrian



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Chidgey, David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Cotter, Brian
Stunell, Andrew


Day Stephen
Swayne, Desmond


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Evans, Nigel
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fox, Dr Liam
Tredinnick, David


Gidley, Sandra
Tyler, Paul


Gray, James
Viggers, Peter


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, Rt Hon James


Hayes, John
Walter, Robert



Waterson, Nigel


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
wells, Bowen


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Willis, Phil


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Christopher Chope and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Livsey, Richard



Luff, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — International Development Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2

REDUCTION IN POVERTY: AID GIVEN THROUGH THIRD PARTIES

'.—The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that no United Kingdom Government aid for a developing country or countries which is to be disbursed via a third party (including multilateral development banks, United Nations agencies, and institutions of the European Union) is made available to that third party unless he is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister should be moving the clause.

Mr. Gary Streeter: May I just say that the Minister would get away that lightly only in his dreams?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'or the promotion of good governance'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out from "that" to end of line 20 and insert—
'in the opinion of the Secretary of State, meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
', but does not allow for any dilution of the developmental purpose to reflect commercial, political or other considerations.'.
No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, after "may", insert—
'provided he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty or the promotion of good governance'.
No. 4, in clause 11, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
'(3A) No payment may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty or the promotion of good governance.'.

Mr. Streeter: This group of amendments is primarily about two vital issues. We are short of time in this important parliamentary debate so, if the House considers nothing else and if the Minister listens to nothing else this afternoon, may I urge him to listen to our arguments on good governance and all of the aid spending realised by the United Kingdom through third parties, including the European Union, the United Nations and other multilateral organisations? Will he consider extremely carefully the points that we seek to make?
I should like to talk about good governance. Obviously, our amendment addresses the issue of good governance, which we want included in the Bill. There was a long but curtailed discussion about good governance in

Committee, and I must tell the Minister that it is fundamental for us. There is nothing new in people in international development talking about the subject. My distinguished predecessor Baroness Chalker—although I do not believe that she ever occupied my position in opposition—talked a lot about good governance and did many good things to establish a proper focus on good governance in British aid policy. I accept that the Minister and his boss, the Secretary of State, often talk about good governance and that it is part of the British aid programme. However, we are arguing that it is not just one factor to be considered in British aid; it is not an optional extra, but the very core of what British aid should be if it is to make a difference to the starving millions around the world.
The Opposition accept and embrace the poverty focus in the Bill but, from our experience and all that we read from commentators and experts, we believe passionately that if we are to deliver a reduction in poverty in the next few years for those living in abject misery and privation, we must put in place in the developing countries that we are seeking to help a much stronger framework for democracy, the rule of law, a strong civil service and burgeoning civil society. That is the essential framework for reducing poverty in those nations.
I have read carefully the Committee proceedings and disagree with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), whose contributions I usually support, as I did not see any evidence of people being distracted or going off on a frolic of their own, as Lord Denning famously said. There were only two or three sentences suggesting such behaviour, but that happens in any Committee in which Members of opposing parties throw ideas at one another that may not be directly to the point. However, the Committee was focused and there was not enough time to deal with all of our important new clauses and amendments.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked why Conservative Members were focusing on good governance, not education, clean water or promoting the position of women. All those issues are important but, as I said, good governance is not just another factor. When building a house, one must have doors, windows and a roof; one cannot get anywhere without a foundation or framework. Good governance is the foundation and framework of any aid policy that this country must operate. It is not an optional extra—the doors and the windows—but the framework, the foundation, the absolute essence. It is because we are so passionately convinced of that that we want it reflected in the Bill.
We want good governance to be the focus for this Government, our next Government—who will come to office on 7 June—and future Governments of whatever political colour. We want it to be the framework of our aid policy for years to come. I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 2 carefully and agree that such an important foundation needs to be expressed in the Bill.
I know that the Minister greatly respects the things that I say—he looks bewildered and puzzled by that—but such comments are not just my thoughts and observations. Increasingly, international development experts and commentators around the world are concluding that good governance is an essential ingredient.
The excellent United Nations development programme poverty report 2000 states:
Effective governance is often the missing link between anti-poverty efforts and poverty reduction.
A missing link between anti-poverty efforts and poverty reduction: governance. Even when a country tries to implement economic policies to foster pro-poor growth and mount targeted poverty programmes, inept or unresponsive governance … can nullify the impact.
When Governments are unaccountable or corrupt, poverty reduction programmes have little success in targeting benefits.
That emphasises that, if one is not careful to work with a Government of a developing country to build good governance into the system, so many of our aid and development programmes become merely a mechanism of pouring money into a black hole. We have seen that over many years.
The World Bank policy research report, "Assessing Aid", of November 1998, with which the Minister is no doubt familiar, states on page 4:
First, financial assistance must be targeted more effectively on low-income countries with sound economic management. In a good policy environment financial assistance is a catalyst for faster growth, more rapid gains in social indicators, and higher private investment. In a poor policy environment, however, aid has much less impact. Clearly, poor countries with good policies should receive more financing than equally poor countries with weak economic management.
In order further to back up my arguments, the excellent report, "Aid and Reform in Africa", of 27 March 2001—a very recent report—also by the World Bank, states on page 33:
Successful reform is undergirded by a strong commitment to good governance. This is essential for rebuilding business confidence".
Good governance is not an optional extra, but the very heart of the matter.
There is a second point that I wish to make to back up our arguments for the expression of good governance in the Bill. It is an important, practical point. All of us in this Chamber want to bear down on global poverty. There is not a single Member of Parliament who is not horrified and repulsed by the poverty that we see when we travel to some of the worst slums in the world. We want to make our own contribution to alleviating that. Most of us are also practical people, however, and we want to know that we are not merely wasting money and coming up with good-sounding language, but focusing on what works.
It is a truism that we have in this country a rich history of good governance. It does not always feel like that; when debating the programme motion, we could have persuaded ourselves that some of our good governance is under threat. However, with our stable democracy, our strong civil service, with which we look forward to working in just a few weeks, and our much respected independent judiciary, we have the history, knowledge and expertise in governance that we can share with developing countries, and which they are hungry to learn from us.
Who in this Chamber can doubt that we know how to collect tax? In many developing countries, they have no such expertise or systems of tax collection. We know all about Customs and Excise, security forces and civil society. I am not saying that we have it all sorted out or that we live in a perfect society—far from it.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the shadows on

the picture is the cost of elections? There are many developing countries where the cost of getting elected is so high that it is wholly unrealistic to expect a Member of Parliament not to spend his time in office trying to reimburse himself. That, of course, sharply undermines good governance.

Mr. Streeter: From his vast experience, my hon. Friend makes an important point. That is indeed the case. Some of the work that we have done in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, about which I shall say a few words later, reinforces his point. It is not just the cost of getting elected; sometimes, in developing countries, the salary levels of people in important civil service positions are so low that although one can never condone corruption, there is almost an imperative for them to be open to such inducements in order to feed their families.
We have vast expertise in this country, and many in the developing world are hungry to learn from us about building good governance in their countries. There is a danger that the international development community is trying to do too much—its work is too scatter-gun. It would be far better to focus on a key issue, such as good governance, which will strengthen the framework, and to make sure that we can deliver on it.
From my experience with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I strongly believe in and support—I am the vice-chairman of that excellent organisation—I know that democracy-building is long term, invisible, intangible and difficult to measure. However, I also know that it is essential for strong frameworks to grow and develop in developing countries, particularly those that have no recent history of democracy. We can be proud of the work of the British Council in supporting good governance abroad, and that work needs to be expanded.
I have set out two reasons why good governance should be written into the Bill, and there is a third reason. Focusing on strengthening the governance of a nation state is dealing with the world as it is. We know that globalisation is going on all around us, and we read books and articles and go to conferences about it. There are people out there protesting and trying to stop globalisation and the march of the multinational corporations. Sometimes they have a point, and sometimes they have a less strong point.
Most of us in the Chamber believe that there is no stopping globalisation: it is happening, and there is nothing much that we can do. In part, it is due to the success of the technological breakthroughs of recent times, increased mobility and the telecommunications revolution. Globalisation is here to stay. There are those who are trying to stop it, but others argue that it contains the answers to every problem faced by humankind. There are globalisation junkies who say that we should be thinking about global governance and allowing multilateral organisations to tackle the issues globally.
That is not yet the real world. Perhaps one day we will move towards global governance, although I have profound doubts about that. It does not seem to strike a chord with the reality of human nature, but there are those who think that that is the way to solve the problems confronting us, and there is an increasing fashion in international development to think along those lines.
However, we are still a world of nation states. The decisions of a national Government are still by far the most important decisions impacting, for example, on a


child in Malawi. They are more important than anything that the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund may say or do. In trying to build good governance and working with the Government of Malawi to strengthen democracy, the civil service and civil society in that country will help them to make better decisions on behalf of the children of that country. By promoting good governance, we are cutting with the grain, not against it. We are not floating off into some philosophical nonsense about globalisation solving all our problems.
The world is made up of nation states, and this policy supports that important truth. I hope that the Minister will listen to these arguments.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the advanced western nations are sometimes good at intervening militarily to prevent or suppress tyranny, but are often not very good at following up to create sustainable democratic civil institutions—in other words, good governance? That is why it is essential that when we give aid to countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina we should try to promote the sustainable civil institutions.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. Such action is hard to take, but it is ultimately the only solution. When we visit Kosovo and the Balkans, as I have done in the past couple of years, we sense that the NGO community has moved in, is reluctant to move out and is making all the decisions. It is far better for us to be strengthening capacity in emerging nations and allowing them to have proper, strong institutions of government. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. No one is saying that such help is easy to provide, but it should be the focus of our aid. Those are the reasons why I believe that good governance should be included in the Bill and why I urge the Government to accept amendment No. 2.
I want to speak now to new clause 2, which deals with a similar but unrelated point. We accept that UK aid should have a poverty focus, but the stark reality is that 50 per cent. of the Department for International Development's budget is spent not by the British Government, but by other multilateral organisations. Some 30 per cent. is spent through the European Union, and up to 20 per cent. is spent via the United Nations and other multilateral organisations. Thus, 50 per cent. of our aid will not be subject to the poverty focus. The new clause asks the Government, what is the point of introducing an important safeguard and framework for UK aid spend, when half the money that we spend will not be subject to the poverty focus?
I do not want to bore the House with the failings of the EU aid budget. Very few quotations suffice to make the point, which we have debated time and time again. To be fair to the Secretary of State, she has been as critical as anyone of the EU's scandalous and abysmal failure in promoting the interests of the poorest people in the world. On 17 May 2000, she said:
Anyone who knows anything about development knows that the EU is the worst agency in the world, the most inefficient, the least poverty-focused, the slowest, flinging money around for political gestures rather than promoting real development.

I sometimes wish that she would more often say what she really means. In November 1999, she said:
The EU's development efforts are very, very, very ineffective. There is poor management and then they get fraud".
In the Financial Times in July 2000, she said:
The EU is running out of time to make concrete improvements in quality and effectiveness on the ground.
In the same article, the said:
If there is no substantial progress in implementation during the next two years, the member states should think seriously about scaling back EU programmes and spending the money better elsewhere.
I could not have put it better myself. It is absolutely scandalous that the EU continues to misuse 30 per cent. of British taxpayers' money, because of lack of focus, fraud and misuse, and because it is getting it horribly wrong.
I am afraid that any hon. Members who think that the EU aid programme is getting better after the recent reforms are sadly mistaken. There is no evidence to suggest that that is happening. Two recent reports published by the European Parliament, that much-loved institution, state that the EU aid programme reached rock bottom in 1999. I should like to cite page 12/14—there does not seem to be a page 13—of one of those reports, which is dated 23 March 2001. In parliamentary terms, the report is hot off the press; indeed, in European parliamentary terms, it is extremely hot off the press.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes some effective points about the EU budget. When we take power on 7 June—I sincerely hope that we will do so—and he takes his richly deserved seat in the Secretary of State's chair, what can he do to start the process of withdrawing us from the scandalous waste of money that he describes, so that we can spend taxpayers' money to relieve third-world poverty?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. In a moment, I shall spell out yet again our policy on ensuring that the abuse comes to an end and that we can scale back and claw back to member states the ability to spend the money bilaterally. We all know that that would ensure better value for money.
I shall return to that point shortly, but I want first to read my quotation from the important European Parliament report to which I referred. Of course, we enjoy reading these wonderful reports. The committee that produced the report
regrets that in 1999 only one of the top 10 recipients of EC overseas development assistance was a least developed country"—
only one in 10—
and that the percentage of EC ODA going to low income and least developed countries fell below fifty per cent. for the first time ever".
It sees that as
contradictory to the Community's commitment to poverty reduction re-emphasised in the Council's and the Commission's Policy Statement.
The EU's aid programme is getting worse, and 30 per cent. of British taxpayers' aid money is spent via that aid programme.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that US$850 million of the European


development budget is being spent on Serbia and Kosovo, the same amount that is allocated for the whole of Latin America and Asia, where about 80 per cent. of the poorest people live? Is not that as much a scandal as what my hon. Friend describes?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend sums up the matter nicely, if grotesquely. It is a scandal which must come to an end. How much longer can we wait? The Conservative party is the only political party pressing for concrete action to bring the scandal to an end. The Government had an opportunity at the recent Nice summit to put the matter on the agenda and to start to build a portfolio of support for scaling back the EU aid programme and allowing member states to spend that money bilaterally.
Since I was the Conservative party's spokesman on Europe in 1997–98, I have become convinced that there is an appetite for such an approach. The Nice summit was an opportunity for the Government to put that issue on the agenda. I urged them several times to do so, but they failed to take that opportunity. As a result, the rather feeble agreement that has now been reached is to review the performance of the EU aid programme in 2006—five more years of waste and five more years of the poorest people in the world suffering in the way that we have described. The Government should have started work on that at the Nice summit and it is to be regretted that they did not.
Under the EU aid programme, 30 per cent. of our aid budget is without a poverty focus. Can the Minister honestly say that it is right that the Bill should have no reference to the fact that any money that we spend via multilateral organisations, whether the EU or the UN, should also have a poverty focus? That would place the Government under a legal obligation to ensure that every pound that is spent via the EU comes within the poverty focus and is properly spent, and would place them under a legal requirement not to sit back and allow the current situation to continue, but to sort the matter out. That is why that should be in the Bill.

Mr. Rowe: As one reason the EU budget is so badly spent is that the EU is quite open about the fact that it has political rather than development imperatives, if the Government are prepared to go along with that, would it not be appropriate for the money that is being spent on our behalf by the EU to come from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's budget?

Mr. Streeter: That is an interesting suggestion, which I hope the Minister will take on board. It is wrong for development aid to be spent via the EU, either as a second tier of immigration policy for the southern European states, or as part of the wider Foreign Office or political diplomatic agenda.
New clause 2 and the amendments grouped with it contain two important points. We say that good governance should be the focus of the Bill and included in it, because without it the Bill will be less effective.
Secondly, the Bill should contain a legal obligation to ensure that any money spent by the British Government via the European Union or the United Nations is not be misused. I could have said much about the United Nations' effectiveness in spending our aid money, but I want to give other colleagues time to speak.

The Government should be legally obliged by the measure not to sit back and allow such scandalous abuse and misuse to continue, but to build alliances, partnerships and support. I believe that they would be pushing against an open door, certainly with northern European and Scandinavian states, which are as fed up as we are. They should sort out the problem.
I hope that the Minister will take those substantive points into account. I believe that they have been fully argued and I am sure that my hon. Friends will speak in support of new clause 2. I hope that he will accept it and that we will not need to put it to the vote.

Mr. Wells: I want to make three points in support of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and the new clause and other amendments in the group. I shall speak about good governance and humanitarian aid. However, first, I want to consider whether the money allocated to international bodies such as the World Bank, the European Union, the development banks and other organisations such as the United Nations development programme and UNICEF could be subject to legal challenge under the Bill as currently drafted.
The Department for International Development spends more than 50 per cent. of its budget on multilateral institutions, which do not have a poverty focus as their only and single-minded purpose. The Bill enshrines that purpose. It is therefore clear that a citizen of this country or a non-governmental organisation could take the Department for International Development to court for allocating part of its budget to, for example, the European Union, which does not spend the money on poverty-focused purposes. That is a genuine danger. Those who drafted the Bill have recognised that, and I am sure that they will inform the Minister of the difficulty.
Clause 4 provides for the Secretary of State to support organisational funds that "wholly or partly" exist for the relevant purposes outlined in clause 1,
if he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
Clause 4 could be used as a defence in a court case against the Department for International Development on its use of international development money allocated by Parliament for relieving poverty. Is the Minister satisfied that the Department is adequately protected by the wording of clause 4? That is an important question if a lot of money and time is not to be wasted on court proceedings. I believe that the clause leaves the Department open to serious challenge in the courts. I should regret such a fruitless use of money and time, which could mean a reduction in the amount of money that the Department can spend on relieving abject poverty.
I want to reflect on what we mean by good governance. I presume that we do not mean the sort of time-wasting activity that we discussed when we considered the programme motion. I hope that we do not define good governance as imposing from above a Westminster-style parliamentary system on the people of other countries. However, good governance requires the maintenance of specific principles.
First, the Executive in any country should be accountable to the people through a representational body, however it is formed. I often argue that democracy is the traditional way in which African countries have ruled themselves. The previous Secretary-General of the


Commonwealth, His Excellency Emeka Anyaoku, often used to refer in speeches to the way in which his chief ruled his area in south-west Africa. There, a meeting of all the people is held, as in a platonic Greek state. The chief is chief by tradition, not necessarily by inheritance. He is the senior man, but he is expected to listen to, take advice from and find the majority opinion within the meeting. Then, together with his elders, some of whom in some African tribes are and have always been—in living memory—elected, he takes the final executive decisions.
A similar process has been described to many of us on visits to Swaziland, which is a monarchy. That procedure is changing, but it is keeping to the principle that the Executive have to be accountable to their people and rule by consent. In essence, that is what our Parliament tries to achieve. If countries achieve it by a different route, we should not oppose it, but welcome and support it in any way that we can.
1.45 pm
The next thing that is essential is that we have a reliable and objective judiciary. That is not an easy thing to achieve. Even in this country, we are questioning whether we are right to leave the appointment of judges entirely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, in view of his conduct in recent times in trying to raise money for political purposes from those who might be appointed to judgeships. Even we are not certain that we have got the right mechanism for appointing people to enforce with impartiality the laws passed by Parliament and the Executive.
A reliable and objective judiciary is essential if domestic savings are to be re-invested in a country and even more if we are to achieve the objective set out in the eliminating world poverty White Paper and the globalisation White Paper, both issued by the DFID during this Parliament, of bringing in the private sector to be the engine of growth, employment and opportunity in some of the poorest countries. Without that capacity to rely on an impartial judiciary, which will make objective decisions, the accumulation of domestic and overseas investment will not occur, and the abjectly poor will remain abjectly poor.
A survey entitled "Voices of the People" asked ordinary people in third-world countries what concerned them most about their Government and corruption. Their first concern was corruption in the judiciary and their second was corruption in the police force, to whom they always have to pay fees for one thing or another—to pass a police barrier on the road or to get a licence to do something or other.
Good governance requires a first-class impartial judiciary, an impartial police force and an objective and impartial civil service, which is essential to good administration. Those elements have to exist if we are to bring about development. The concept of good governance has come to the fore in development thinking as a result of failures of the past. Without such a framework in developing countries, it is close to impossible to get development to take place. So it is right to include the question of good governance in the Bill as it is essential to realising its objective, which is of course to eliminate abject poverty throughout the world.
Another thing that worries me about the proposals is whether we should allow regional development banks to invest in humanitarian aid. If we passed the new clause, we would exclude the possibility of regional banks providing such aid.
As I said on Second Reading, humanitarian aid is a problem because it is being thoroughly abused, which is undermining the whole concept of it. Such aid depends on the impartiality of its delivery. It should go to both or all sides of a conflict or violent event: to those who have been killed, maimed or injured who are working for the Government and those who have been killed, maimed or injured who are protesting or conducting a violent campaign against the Government. The Red Cross is trusted to go in on both sides and to provide humanitarian aid to them.
That principle has been established since the mid-19th century. If we throw it away, it will be at great expense: there will be much human suffering in those violent situations. That is why I am concerned that we make certain that humanitarian aid is delivered impartially.
In the post-cold war era, the concept of humanitarianism has been deepened and broadened in principle and in practice.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I echo what a number of people have already said. We shall miss him very much and we admire greatly the tremendous work that he has done on international development.
On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises, does he agree that, whoever is responsible for delivering humanitarian aid, it is crucial that they continue to work increasingly with non-governmental organisations, so that the aid is seen to be delivered to the people who should be benefiting?

Mr. Wells: I agree. We must be careful that we work with NGOs that are properly managed, organised and capable of delivering the aid to both sides impartially. If one NGO, for whatever reason, has adopted a particular position on the conflict in which it is working, I suggest that it be thereby excluded from delivering such humanitarian aid so as to maintain the impartial nature of the aid. That is essential if we are to be able to help, for example, in the distribution of food—we all saw the starvation conditions produced by conflict in Ethiopia many years ago.
One of the difficult questions that we face is whether we are feeding the two armies in a conflict as a primary result of the distribution of food, so that the fighting can continue for longer. By all admission, much food aid distributed in those circumstances does support the belligerents. In those circumstances we need to train NGOs to deliver impartially—they are the people to do so—because we cannot employ Government people to distribute the aid if they are in conflict with a large part of the civil population. The NGOs therefore play a crucial role.
As I have said, humanitarian assistance in the post-cold war period has been extended because it has begun to be used as a method by which to influence internal disputes within countries. As we all know, since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have predominantly dealt with conflicts within countries, not between countries. Although the type


of conflict in which we were engaged in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans is an example of that change, the examples of Sierra Leone and of Angola also stare us in the face. It is a very difficult issue
I am worried that humanitarian assistance is increasingly associated with politico-military intervention by the west. The obvious example of that is NATO's appointment of a "humanitarian general"—a general in charge of humanitarian assistance provided by NATO. The Select Committee on International Development met the general, the first to be appointed, who was very efficient and had organised most of Albania with the consent of its Government. He was given control of the ports, airports and all the roads leading to the border with Kosovo, all of which he ran with exemplary efficiency and discipline. Nevertheless, he called himself a humanitarian NATO general.
Let us consider that role for a moment. He was a humanitarian general on behalf of one side of a conflict. Was he offering those services to the Serbs in Kosovo? Was he also prepared to run their ports, airports and military logistics to assist them? It does not make any sense at all, but that is what we have started to slip into by using the word "humanitarian" for such purposes.
The relationship between humanitarian and political action has become very complex, and an international consensus is lacking on the political character and legitimacy of humanitarian assistance. I believe that that situation will become more acute if we continue down the same road. I also believe that clause 3 places us in danger of allowing the operation of humanitarian assistance to slip further. As hon. Members will have noticed, clause 3 exempts the Government from a requirement to ensure that money spent on humanitarian assistance is used for poverty reduction programmes. It requires that the money be spent not on pro-poor policies, but simply on humanitarian aid.
In its reply to the sixth report of the International Development Committee, on conflict prevention and reconstruction, which was published in 1999, the Department for International Development defined humanitarian aid as
all measures in situations of conflicts, disasters and emergencies, which are intended to save lives, relieve suffering, hasten recovery, protect and rebuild livelihoods and community, and reduce vulnerability to future crises. This includes disaster relief, preparedness, prevention and mitigation, food aid and assistance to refugees and other displaced populations. It also includes essential measures to re-establish structures and systems to govern and administer services where these have broken down due to the crisis or disaster".
Currently, there is no statutory basis—the Bill does not provide one—for humanitarian assistance. The definition rests on an analysis of content and not on principle. Furthermore, it does not take into account the political distinction between relief and development assistance. I believe that we have to address ourselves to that issue and that, to protect itself, the Department also has to think about the issue.
I know that the Department does not wish to provide a definition because it is afraid that, if it does so, it will be taken to court in a judicial review. If the Government provided a definition, a decision to spend money on humanitarian assistance could be challenged in court. As we know, in court, definitions are manna for lawyers. I think that the risk of such legal action is a real danger.

Conversely, leaving the definition as vague as it is in the Bill runs the equal danger of allowing humanitarian assistance to be used in a manner that is partial and that promotes conflict rather than the reverse.
2 pm
We must think about how we can achieve the objectives that we have set in regard to humanitarian assistance. I would define them as follows: to prevent and alleviate human suffering, to protect life and health, and to ensure respect for the human being. Arguably, that definition provides for the protection and re-establishment of livelihoods, not just the saving of lives. In other words, unlike development assistance or political intervention, humanitarian assistance is concerned with the preservation and dignity of individuals. It is based on their humanity, not on the development of particular political or economic systems or on political affiliation. That definition—probably refined—might fulfil the purposes that we all want to be maintained and sustained in respect of humanitarian assistance as defined in clause 3.
That is all that I wish to say at this stage, but I believe that there are important issues that should be reflected in the Bill.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I want to offer a few thoughts on good governance. In a few weeks, we are all likely to be touring the country telling the population that the other side is incapable of delivering good governance; yet here we are, discussing how other countries may deliver it.
1 was relieved to note that Opposition Members are not talking nowadays of trying to impose a west-approved system on other countries, but I feel that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is expecting a great deal in some instances. While representative democracy and an independent judiciary are ideals that we hope can be aspired to by every country—the sooner the better—in many cases we seem to be a long way from achieving those aims. In far too many countries, for example, women—despite constituting half the population—do not have a say in how their countries are run, let alone play a part in Government or judiciary. If we are calling for good governance, we should ensure that women have an equal right to run their own countries.
What the Secretary of State has done over the past four years is crucial. She has developed literacy and numeracy programmes, and that alone is a key element. Literacy and numeracy present populations with the opportunity to challenge, as they enable them to think for themselves, to argue, to campaign and to get things done. My right hon. Friend's concentration over those four years, and in the Bill, on promoting education—especially women's education—is what is required. We must begin where people are, not where they are likely to be.

Mr. Leigh: I support new clause 2 and the amendments grouped with it.
Good governance is indeed crucial to the debate; we know that from our own experience. When this country suddenly leapt forward, it was because we started to pay High Court and other judges rates that ensured that they were incorruptible. From that moment we gave an enormous boost to good governance. The same applies to the civil service. Why did the country leap forward in


the last century, in terms of good governance? Because corruption was cleared out of the civil service; civil servants were paid a decent salary, and were recruited through competitive examinations. The House should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for putting good governance on the agenda.
I want to concentrate on new clause 2, and its emphasis on a reduction of poverty. There is no doubt at all that EC assistance is too often influenced by political expediency rather than being concentrated on the reduction of poverty—I think that both sides of the House are convinced of that. As we have heard, that means that EU assistance, in the name of development aid, goes to relatively rich countries which are neighbours of the EU; such aid is thus unavailable for really poor countries.
I join the whole House in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for his chairmanship of the Select Committee on International Development and for the way in which he has developed the debate in a bipartisan spirit. He has contributed much to a greater understanding of the issues in the House and in the Conservative party. The Committee's ninth report is excellent; I very much hope that all Members will take a few moments to glance through it.
The report is fair. I do not want to be accused of EU bashing. I want to defend the EU—just for a moment—so that no one can say that we are trying to use new clause 2 merely to bash the EU. The report stated that the EU is perfectly entitled to take an interest in what is going on in Poland, in Bosnia or in Serbia. However, that is a political objective; it should not be part of the aid budget. As the report stated on page ix:
EC external assistance policies are clearly determined more by political priorities than poverty alleviation. Pre-accession aid and the stability of the regions surrounding the EU are indeed important political objectives.
We all accept that. It is vital for all of us in this place that Poland, for instance, is ready to join the EU. However, we are in a ridiculous situation, as Chris Patten outlined in the report. He stated:
A consequence of that is that today we spend twice as much in Poland preparing for accession as we spend in Latin America and Asia combined.
That cannot be right.
There must be a better way. We look forward to the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development on this point. Can we not convince the Council of Ministers and our friends in the EU that we are entitled to pay our fair share in helping Serbia, Bosnia or Poland or other hot spots close to our borders, but that we need a ring-fenced budget? As the report states:
All too often Category 4, initially envisaged as a source of finance for community development programmes, is 'raided' by the Council of Ministers to fund political initiatives that they do not wish to fund bilaterally, amounting to what Clare Short described as 'political gestures'.
The Committee asks for
a budget for expenditure in all developing countries dedicated to its principles".
I agree.
I do not seek here to make a party political point or any point directed against the EU. I fully accept that everyone has their own priorities. However, when we are faced with dire poverty in the world, and when both sides of the House face enormous difficulties in the political debate trying to convince hon. Friends that we should devote more resources to the world's poorest populations, even though that may result in fewer hospitals, schools and roads—all the things that our voters actually want—how can we go to our electorates and argue for that aid when we see such waste, or at least misdirection, of resources? People think that those resources are going to help the world's poorest people, but they are in fact being diverted for political objectives. I hope that the whole House can agree with new clause 2 on that point.
The picture gets worse, however. Whatever one's opinion of the EU, one has to be critical of the way that it spends its money. On 6 August 2000, the Sunday Telegraph reported that
nearly two years after Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America, leaving almost 7,000 people dead, the EU has failed to deliver a penny of the £170-million package pledged to help survivors of the disaster.
The article accuses the European Commission of
'gesture politics' because they have a history of announcing grand aid packages to the Third World without having a clue how the money should be spent on the ground.
The report says, at page xvi:
The Committee has heard of a number of examples of delays and inefficiencies in disbursement. Population Concern gave the Committee two examples of such delays: the first was a delay of thirteen months"—
13 months!—
in the disbursement of funds for four mini-projects in Bolivia and Peru; in the second instance—a Community-based Distribution Programme in Karachi—The funding situation became so dire that the Director of a local NGO in Pakistan took out a personal loan to pay staff salaries".
The picture persists; it is not good enough. After all, we are talking about public money. It may be public money disbursed by an international organisation, a multinational organisation; there may not be very great political pressure—in fact, there is virtually no political pressure—on the way these moneys are disbursed. There may not even be much public interest. However, as a result of the lack of control and lack of concern, some poor person who is trying to do a decent job to help some of the world's poorest people, in some little office in Pakistan, has to pay salaries cut of her own pocket. That is simply not good enough.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is probably aware that one of the pressures under which the EU operates is that whenever there is evidence of malfeasance there is a huge outburst of scandal and horror, and then, instead of reviewing all its procedures and ensuring that there is one accountable person, the EU simply increases the number of signatures that have to appear on each authorisation. Far from improving accountability, that requirement hugely diminishes it, and colossally increases the time that such an authorisation takes to go through the system.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge on these subjects, makes a perfectly valid point. It is difficult to advise the EU on how to proceed, but I suppose that the problem boils down to a lack of


political oversight, of national interest and of national concern—the equivalent of Ministers being brought back to the House to be brought to account. As a result there are scandals and bad publicity, and as my hon. Friend says, it is then necessary to add another layer of bureaucracy because people involved in the process get worried about their career and the way they will be reported in the press.
The Commission, in a statement on development policy, has analysed the problems that it faces in implementing commitments. Fair enough. It listed them as
a complex and fragmented aid system: policies guided by instruments rather than by policy objectives; substandard monitoring and evaluation procedures; burdensome ex-ante financial controls; lack of human resources.
Let us consider the point about lack of human resources. Is the reason why the EU is unable to devote itself adequately to relieving poverty in the third world the fact that it does not have the right number of staff? The Commission has argued that there is a shortfall of 1,300 staff, and that therefore it simply cannot deliver the programme in the way it should. It says that the shortfall has the obvious effect of leaving a few staff to deal with an enormously increased amount of money to spend and makes it obvious that the efficiency of the programmes will be damaged, and that it will be less likely that they will be followed up and corruption detected.
Is it true that the reason why the EU is performing so badly is that there is a shortfall of 1,300 staff? I suspect not. My viewpoint is shared by the International Development Secretary, who declared her opposition to giving the Commission any more money for staff and has promised to "fight to the death" to prevent it unless the Commission improves the quality of what it is doing already.
The International Development Secretary, to whom I pay tribute, is being absolutely robust in this. She is saying that the problem is not due to lack of staff at all. Fair enough. If we therefore are all agreed—I see Labour Members nodding—why is she willing to continue to use the European Commission to distribute aid despite its being, in her words,
the worst development agency in the world',
and despite the fact that, in her words.
the poor quality and reputation of its aid bring Europe into disrepute"?
I have never heard a Minister, whether Conservative or Labour, use such strong language to describe any EU institution. This is not someone who has a reputation as a Eurosceptic trying to score political points, but the International Development Secretary, who describes the Commission as
the worst development agency in the world'.
That is why the group of amendments before us is so apposite. It does not make sense for the International Development Secretary to continue to use and depend on the EU for aid distribution despite its being truly awful. Surely she and her junior Minister, who is here today, must agree with the Conservative new clause to propose that no aid be allowed to be distributed by a third party unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is likely to result in a reduction of poverty. That is all the new clause is about.
2.15 pm
If we place our hopes in the illusion of the EU's reforming itself and suddenly becoming, contrary to all the expectations of the International Development Secretary, an efficient organisation which works solely for the reduction of poverty in a holistic manner, I believe that we are fooling ourselves. The all-party International Development Committee, in producing the report, has been
exasperated with the failure of the Commission to reform its development activity effectively.
That all-party Committee says that it would be foolishness to assume that the EU will now reform itself. The EU has far too many problems with its aid programme to reform itself effectively in the foreseeable future.
I believe that it would be better if the United Kingdom took the decision to spend this money itself, controlled by this Parliament, for the reduction in poverty in the world and to help the world's poorest people.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I rise to speak to amendment No. 6, but I hope that the House will allow me to make a few comments first on the other amendments and the new clause before us.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), as usual, said a great deal about good governance, and many people in the House would agree with what he says. It is indeed fundamental. It lies at the core of any development programme in an underdeveloped country. However, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we must question what good governance is. It is sometimes extremely difficult to put a finger on what its ingredients are.
I was about to rise to ask the hon. Gentleman whether Uganda would be an example of good governance. I remember his having great doubts when we were out there, and yet Uganda seems to be doing quite well in development terms, and delivering the goods as far as the Department for International Development is concerned. If we intend to declare that people will get aid only to further good governance, and that that is at the very core of poverty alleviation, it is worth remembering that it is quite difficult to assess what good governance is.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned the police and the judiciary. In doing so, he perfectly illustrated what I am always saying: that poverty can be alleviated only by addressing very many factors. One cannot give one factor a higher priority than another. How can one have a good police force, and above all a good judiciary, without education? Should not education therefore lie at the core of development? One cannot educate people or maintain good governance unless those people are relatively healthy and have a health care system—so should not health care be at the core? One cannot have good health without clean water, so should not clean water be at the very core? So is not clean water just as important as good governance? They all go together; it is thus absolutely right that the core powers are set out in the way that they are, and that they do not give one factor more importance than another. It is important that we go ahead on many fronts.
Certainly, it may sometimes feel, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, that this is a bit of a scatter-gun approach, but it has to be that way, because


these aspects will improve and the countries involved will improve only if all those factors are addressed at the same time. I cannot therefore support the amendments tabled by the Conservative party.
We all have sympathy with what has been said about the inefficiency of European Union aid. I shall not bore the House again with my story of reading reports from the Court of Auditors. They contain absolutely horrific stories of projects not started, not completed or not reported on, and of money not even wasted but simply not used—just sitting there, not delivering the aid that was intended. Sadly, EU aid gives the Conservative party another opportunity for a bit of Europe bashing, and I wish that the EU would put its house in order because it provides such a wonderful excuse to attack Europe and all things European.
I remind Conservative Members that if they had played a more wholehearted part in setting up all those institutions, and if they had been there enthusiastically insisting that the European aid budgets were managed properly, instead of washing their hands, like Pontius Pilate, of all things European, we would be in a much better state today and they could not criticise what goes on in our name.

Mr. Wells: As the hon. Lady will know, because she was a member of the Select Committee when we drafted the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred, we recommended not that we should withdraw money from the European aid programme, but that we should make that programme perform better. Does she agree that Mr. Chris Patten and Mr. Nielsen—the two Commissioners principally concerned with European aid—have introduced many new measures which will come into force this year and promise to make European aid much more efficient and to deliver pro-poor policies in the third world?

Dr. Tonge: Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am hopeful that reform will take place. Conservative Members have quoted the Secretary of State on many occasions this afternoon. She is unhappy about the way things work, and she will ensure that we will not contribute more funds until they improve. I have a lot of faith in my constituent, Commissioner Patten—he is not all the Conservative party's; he is partly mine too. He and his colleague are sincerely trying to improve matters, but I repeat that it is very foolish of the Conservative Opposition continually to carp about the systems that they set up but now want nothing to do with.
I want to make one last point on European aid. It is rather strange that the Conservative party says that good governance and political considerations are of the very essence if we want to relieve poverty, and that good governance must be top of the aid agenda, since that is precisely what many European aid projects do. They are trying to deliver good governance, which will improve the countries where they operate and bring them into the first world and, eventually, the European Union. Conservative Members have been speaking on both sides of the argument.

Mr. Streeter: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady's speech, which I am greatly enjoying, and I am

keen to deal with the other groups of amendments, but I must make two points. First, the EU may well be building good governance in certain places, but our argument is that it is doing so in the wrong places; it is not doing it in the poorest countries, which are those most desperate for a measure of good governance.
Secondly, is the hon. Lady aware of a recent report—again, produced by the European Parliament—in which the Parliament expresses massive pessimism about whether the European aid reforms which Commissioner Patten has just introduced will work, because they do not deal with the EU culture, which is so bureaucratic, ineffective and unfocused? Is not that the problem? We all want those reforms to work, but I am afraid that, living in the real world, we profoundly believe they will not.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He reinforces what I say: much European aid is being used for the purposes that he suggests it should be used.

Mr. Streeter: But in the wrong places.

Dr. Tonge: Well, who is to say which are the wrong places, when talking about good governance? The Conservative party must sort out its argument; there is an element of confusion among some Opposition Members this afternoon.
I should like to deal with tied aid. In the White Paper on globalisation, we are told:
The UK Government is totally committed to the multilateral untying of aid.
It also states that the Government will
untie all UK development assistance from 1 April 2001.
The Government have already untied the knots and aid is now untied, so why have they not mentioned tied aid in the Bill? Would it not have been wonderful for all those of us who criticised the Pergau dam—the most famous example of all—to have seen the words "tied aid" in the Bill? That would have been a recognition, as the White Paper states, that the Government are legislating to stop the practice.
The White Paper states that more than a third of the total amount of aid to developing countries—about £13 billion—is given on the condition that it is tied to the purchase of products and services. According to the White Paper, tied aid
reduces the value of that aid by about 25 per cent.
It states that "it is grossly inefficient" to supply developing countries with incompatible equipment from different development agencies.
Project objectives are skewed towards commercial considerations, and capital intensive projects are favoured more than smaller, more effective poverty-focused projects. Tied aid also
encourages a donor driven approach to development. It signals that development agencies' major concern is not development, but their national contracts.
All that is stated in the White Paper.

Mr. Wells: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Lady and thank her for allowing me to do so. Does she not think that clause 1 would prohibit the retying of aid?


Apart from being poverty focused, the Bill's objective is, under clause 1, to exclude any possibility of reintroducing tied aid.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I find it difficult to grapple with that concept. The Department and the Minister have been very kind; they have been patient with me, and they have spent a long time discussing clause 1 with me, but I am still not satisfied that it will stop the reintroduction of tied aid. I am told that it will do so, but I dispute that; it is not clear enough.
Clause 1 states:
'development assistance' means assistance provided for the purpose of … furthering sustainable development in one or more countries outside the United Kingdom, or … improving the welfare of the population of one or more such countries.
It also states that
'sustainable development' includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent".
What is prudence in the mind of Secretaries of State?
We know that the current Secretary of State is a very prudent person and that, on the whole, we would trust her with international development, but what of future Secretaries of State? Pigs may fly, and someone in the Chamber may become a Secretary of State one day—I do not refer to the hon. Member for South-West Devon. Nevertheless, clause 1 is not clear, because nowhere does it say that it
does not allow for any dilution of the developmental purpose to reflect commercial, political or other considerations.
That is what I am told that clause 1 is intended to say, which is why I suggest in amendment No. 6 that that phrase should be included. That is what the clause is supposed to say, so why not say it?

Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall address most of my remarks to amendment No. 5, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. First, however, I shall comment briefly on the new clause and other amendments.
There is a great deal of virtue in new clause 2 and its purposes, which were set out by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). There is an obvious failure in the European Union aid policy. The only question that we need answer is whether we should place on the Secretary of State a responsibility that should be fulfilled by the European Parliament and the Commission, which are accountable. There are difficulties with accountability which we need to address at a European level.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that over a long period the European Parliament and the Commission have shown themselves incapable of reforming the aid programme, and that in those circumstances, it is necessary for the House to consider taking action?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree that we need to consider taking action, and that is why I think new clause 2 worthy of consideration. However, whether we should put that responsibility on the Secretary of State is a matter of

opinion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, so far, we have seen little action by the European Parliament. It has new powers in this regard and is supposedly able to call people to account on the budget, but we have yet to see that happen.
I am less clear about the issue of good governance. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) put her finger on it when she said that good governance is a worthy aim of international development, but it is not the sole aim and it should not receive a higher priority than other aims such as education and health services and clean water.
Amendment No. 5 deals with sustainable development, which lies at the heart of the Bill's objectives. To be absolutely clear for the purposes of debate, sustainable development is not an objective like good governance or clean water; it is the whole framework within which we should deliver international aid policies. Agenda 21, agreed in the Rio declaration to which the previous Government wholeheartedly signed up, defines sustainable development as
the progressive integration of the economic, social and issues in the pursuit of development that is economically efficient, socially equitable and responsible and environmentally sound".
That is a rather cumbersome definition, but it makes it clear that sustainable development is about more than delivering one aid package or achieving one type of improvement.
Some Members may feel that sustainable development is about the environment, and are asking why we should be discussing it in relation to a Bill on international development. They may think that we need first to get the economy going or to address social needs. It must be emphasised that sustainable development is about the environment, social needs and the economy coming together in a package that allows a country to develop in a way that will give its future generations the opportunity to thrive.
The Government have sought to define sustainable development in the Bill in that context. I welcome their attempt to do so, but I do not know who dreamt up the definition because it does not square with those used by the Government in other regards. Recently in his career, the Under-Secretary has used other definitions elsewhere in the Government. I tabled my amendment because the definition in the Bill does not cover all our needs.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park has pointed out, the Bill says that sustainable development
includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State"—
I have no objection to its being the Secretary of State's opinion—
prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided.
I suppose that the definition is okay in itself, but I am not sure what it really means. It does not sufficiently tie the hands of future Secretaries of State as regards the introduction of tied aid, which has already been mentioned, or support for projects that do not meet what we think of as the criteria for sustainability.
Amendment No. 5 would introduce what is generally known as the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, which is now the most widely accepted


international definition. I am not the one who says that; it is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The DETR's development strategy, "A Better Quality of Life", asks:
What is sustainable development? At its heart it is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come.
That is rather worthy, but it does not mean very much. However, the strategy goes on to say:
A widely used international definition is 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
I seek to amend the Bill to include that definition, which is accepted by the DETR.
Interestingly, the only other legislation passed by the House which has included a reference to sustainable development is the Government of Wales Act 1998, which placed on the National Assembly for Wales an obligation to introduce sustainable development. It did not include a definition, but in responding to the obligation, the Assembly has come up with one. Lo and behold, it says:
A widely used international definition featured in the 1987 United Nations Brundtland report to the World Commission on Environment and Development, is: 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
I have given two clear examples of how the Government have rightly sought to establish a definition of sustainable development: one, directly, through the DETR, and the second, indirectly, by placing an obligation on the National Assembly for Wales, which responded by using the Brundtland definition.
There is another recent definition of sustainable development, which is contained in the European Union's 6th environmental action programme, but out of sensitivity to what some hon. Members regard as gobbledegook emerging from Europe, I will not quote it. It is not as acceptable to me as it may be to other hon. Members.
It is important to get that definition right. We know from the debate that we are now having on climate change that the worst effects are being felt in sub-Saharan Africa and developing countries. We will experience the least effects here, and we can cope with storms, floods and extreme summer temperatures using our technology and our economy. However, our Kyoto obligations and the need to develop international development aid in light of those obligations mean that we need a much clearer view of what sustainable development is.
We should have a strong definition so that we can respond to any international feeling, such as that demonstrated by America, which may be expressed about Kyoto and global warming in the near future. Having the right definition is vital, and in providing development aid we must not transfer the burden of meeting our Kyoto targets to the developing countries themselves. First and foremost, they have to bring themselves up to a level at which they can cope with climate change. There are some worrying ideas concerning the clean development mechanism which means that we may place our burdens on those countries through development aid. I do not want that to happen, and a stronger definition of sustainable development may be a way to avoid it.
I concur with the general view that the Secretary of State will not misuse the existing definition in the Bill, but a future Secretary of State may negotiate within the Government or the World Trade Organisation or on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, about which concern was expressed on Second Reading. They will have to report back to the House about how they are fulfilling the obligations placed on them by the Bill. For that reason, we need a firmer definition of sustainable development. If the Under-Secretary is not prepared to accept my definition, will he explain what the definition in the Bill means?
How do the Government intend to report back to the House on how they are achieving their obligations and objectives under that definition? It has been suggested that we need an annual in bi-annual debate on the matter. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has in the past considered how Departments have set out and followed guidelines on sustainable development, using Green Ministers to do so, I ask how we will show that we are delivering sustainable development if we do not have the right definition. Are the sustainable development aims that the Government want achieved in this country those being achieved through our development aid in other countries?

Mr. Mullin: We have had a good debate about a large group of amendments, and I shall do my best to say something about all of them.
The amendments and the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) all seek to change the aim or purposes for which development assistance can be provided. The Bill sets out a simple aim for British development assistance. With the exception of assistance to the overseas territories and that provided in response to disasters and emergencies, assistance can be provided only if it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
New clause 2 provides that no UK development assistance could be disbursed through third parties unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty. I am afraid that the new clause stems from a misreading of the Bill. Most of the assistance listed in it—in particular, assistance to agencies of the United Nations and to the European Development Fund—is provided for under clause 4(2), which allows a Secretary of State to support organisations and contribute to funds, and here I quote from that subsection,
if he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
That is exactly the same as the test proposed in the new clause.
The Opposition may have been confused by clause 8, which provides for a Secretary of State to enter into arrangements to provide development assistance with third parties. I can reassure the House that this clause, too, is subject to the powers set out in clauses 1 to 4. Assistance given via third parties must, to the same extent as assistance given directly by the Secretary of State, be likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
The new clause also refers to payments via multilateral development banks. I take this to be a reference to payments made under clause 11. I will cover that point when I reach amendment No. 4 shortly.


The hon. Member for South-West Devon and some of his colleagues got excited at the mention of the European Union. He is right to draw attention to the poor record of the EU's aid policy, but it might help to put his indignation in context if I say that, at the Edinburgh summit in 1992, a Tory Government signed up to the huge increase in aid to be channelled via the European Community.

Mr. Streeter: I have made this point before, but the Minister will know that it is only since 1997–98 that the true horror of the EU's aid programme has become apparent to us all. If he is right to say that all British Government aid—whether or not it goes through the EU—must reduce poverty, what will he and the Secretary of State do the day after the Bill becomes an Act? He surely cannot pretend that the EU's programme has a poverty focus.

Mr. Mullin: I am about to deal with that point. However, it is slightly odd that the horror, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, of the EU's development budget became apparent only after the change of Government in 1997. That makes one wonder what the previous Government were doing before then. However, I shall not make too much of that point, because we have had a good-natured debate and I acknowledge that there is a serious problem with the EU development budget and the way in which it is spent.
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands one point, so I should clarify the scope of the Bill. Only expenditure on the European Development Fund is covered by the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 and will be covered by the Bill. Expenditure on all other European Community development programmes, such as Poland and Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy—PHARE—Which provides financial and technical co-operation to central and eastern European countries, and the MEDA programme, which provides development assistance to 12 middle-income countries in the Mediterranean, are and will continue to be covered by the European Communities Act 1972.
2.45 pm
Over the past five years, programmes covered by the 1972 Act have accounted for more than 70 per cent. of DFID's expenditure in the European Community. Therefore, this Bill deals with the European Development Fund and the 30 per cent. of our contribution to the EC aid programme that is spent through the EDF. The fund provides development assistance to 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and, with one exception, they are all developing countries. The EDF covers 39 of the world's 48 least-developed countries and the central objective of the Cotonou agreement, which governs the EDF, is poverty reduction.
In 1999–2000, DFID contributed £213 million to the EDF and the UK Government argued strongly and successfully that EDF allocations should reflect its poverty focus and 71 per cent. of country allocations now go to the least-developed countries, and a further 18 per cent. to other low-income countries.
We have taken advice and I can confirm that, given the EDF's clear focus on poverty reduction as set out in the Cotonou agreement, the Secretary of State will be able to

continue to contribute to it under the Bill. I think that that addresses the point that the hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. The fact that the majority of EC development programmes fall outside the scope of the Bill does not mean that we do not engage with them to improve their efficiency, effectiveness and poverty focus. The scale and scope of the EC's development operations mean that it has the potential to play a major role in reducing poverty but, so far, it has not come close to fulfilling that potential.

Mr. Wells: We should reflect on the ties on the EU aid budget outside the EDF. It is compulsory that every country in the EU contributes and many of them have never spent any money on development at all. To abandon that source of money would lead to a serious reduction in the amount of aid available to poor countries.

Mr. Mullin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should reflect on that point. He and other hon. Members are right to draw attention to it, but it is not relevant for the purposes of this Bill. Much of the discussion about aid to middle-income countries and the aid that has been misdirected is covered by the European Communities Act 1972 and it will not be affected by the Bill. That is the only point that I wish to make.

Mr. Rowe: I had not until this moment realised the point that the Minister has just made, and I am grateful to him for making it. However, does he not realise that the issue is extraordinarily confusing for the general public? As I understand it, the 0.3 per cent., or whatever it is, that we now spend includes the money covered by the 1972 Act. It is therefore caught up in the rhetoric about whether our money goes to the poorest countries. When ordinary people try to reassure themselves that we are a generous country, they will think that the whole of that 0.3 per cent. goes to the poorest countries, but that is clearly not so.

Mr. Mullin: I say again that hon. Members are right to draw attention to the problems with a large part—if not all—of the EU's development spending. However, many of those points are not relevant to the Bill and the new clause, because they deal with funds that will not be governed by the Bill. The money spent by the EC through the EDF is, by and large, spent in a better way and is more directly targeted at the poorest countries than some of the EC's other expenditure.

Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that EU aid generally is inefficient, slow, disorganised and unaccountable? If so, what action are he and the Government taking to ensure that the 30 per cent. which is covered by the Bill is spent more effectively? If that money is focused on the poorest countries but is not spent well, why should we give the EU aid budget more money?

Mr. Mullin: My point is that the 30 per cent. that is accounted for in the European Development Fund is the better-spent European aid. It is targeted at the poorest countries, which is what my hon. Friend wants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put us at the forefront of ensuring that all the EU's budget—not just the 30 per cent.—is spent more efficiently, and we shall continue to lead the way. The relatively new Danish European Commissioner is making a great effort to


implement reforms. As he is dealing with a mighty task, we have to give him some leeway to make progress, and there are signs that that is happening.
Many other issues besides the European aspect of our development aid have been raised. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 attempt to insert a reference to good governance. They are all unnecessary and undesirable, and the Government will resist them.
Amendment No. 2, which relates to clause 1, proposes that good governance should be an aim of development assistance and independent of poverty reduction. I entirely accept that the quality of governance is critical for the eradication of poverty. If Governments are unrepresentative and ineffective, and where corruption is endemic, economic growth and sound development suffer. I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Member for South-West Devon and other hon. Members said about the importance of good governance.
Chapter 1 of our 2001 departmental report, published last month, details the policies and actions that we are pursuing to promote sustainable livelihoods. We are strengthening governance and encouraging economic growth, which benefits the poor and upholds human rights. Let me offer a few brief examples to demonstrate the range of activities and initiatives that we support. In Uganda, we are supporting changes in the banking laws to increase access by the poor to financial services. We are also supporting a five-year commercial justice reform programme that aims to create a sound legal environment in which both foreign and domestic businesses can feel confident, and thereby increase investment levels. In Croatia, the Ukraine, Uganda and Russia, we are working with the Clerk's Department to strengthen the parliamentary system. In Jonestown, Jamaica, we are working with the Government and the local community to reduce violent crime.
The Bill will not prevent the Secretary of State from supporting those interventions because they all contribute to the reduction of poverty, either through furthering sustainable development or through promoting the welfare of the people. So to make good governance an additional aim of development assistance is unnecessary and undesirable. The quality of governance is important, but, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park forcefully made clear, so are health, education, water, enterprise development, trade, investment and so on. All those aspects of development are interdependent. To mention one without the others would give a distorted perspective on development, which could weaken the Secretary of State's other powers.
We are clear in our understanding that support for good governance is possible within the powers set out in the Bill. If we elevate it to the level of a specific free-standing aim, then on the principle that nothing unnecessary is stated in legislation, every additional aim would cast doubt on the core power. If support for good governance is not, as we believe, implicit in action to reduce poverty, what does the core power cover? We are anxious not to dilute that power. That is our key consideration.
Amendment No. 3 provides that the activities authorised in clause 4(1) should be likely to promote the reduction of poverty or good governance. Concern was expressed in Committee that because it was not linked to

that requirement, it created a loophole that would allow the Secretary of State to provide development assistance for any reason whatsoever. That concern is misplaced and stems from a misunderstanding of the Bill's structure.
As clause 4(1) makes clear, the Secretary of State may only exercise his or her powers
with a view to preparing for or facilitating the exercise of his powers under section 1, 2 or 3".
It is wrong to suggest that there is no link between that power and the core power. It does not create a loophole and is entirely consistent with the Bill's poverty focus. The amendment is therefore defective.
Amendment No. 4 relates to clause 11, which provides for payments to multilateral development banks. It is a reworking of the provisions of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 and supports payments by way of subscription and contribution to a number of multilateral financial institutions. The amendment would require that all such payments must be likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty or to promote good governance.
I need to make two points on that. First, those payments fall due because of international agreements entered into by various Governments, including the previous Administration. It would be a very serious matter if Parliament proposed that the Secretary of State be put in a position of having to renege on the United Kingdom's financial commitments. Secondly, any such payments are, in any event, subject to the prior approval of the House, as stated in subsection (5). It follows that if the House is unhappy with the making of a particular payment, it has the power to prevent it. In that respect, the amendment is unnecessary and an undesirable additional constraint.
A common thread runs through the amendments: they all attempt to add good governance to the aims or purposes of the Bill. Let me again make it clear that the Secretary of State will be able to support activities that promote good governance. The quality of governance is vital for the sustainable reduction of poverty. I can further reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State will be able to continue to support all the activities—including those of good governance—that we are currently backing.
Amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), relates to clause 1 and deals with a different issue. It attempts to insert a particular interpretation of sustainable development which would impose an unreasonable constraint on the Secretary of State. The amendment interprets sustainable development as being something that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations".
As the hon. Gentleman said, that is taken from the 1987 Brundtland report. We believe that the interpretation is excessively narrow and puts undue emphasis on environmental concerns. We are aiming for a balance between environmental, economic and social concerns. Let us take, for example, the extraction of minerals. If extraction is managed properly and the income generated is used for productive purposes, it can enable a country to lift itself and its people out of poverty; yet such extraction


would diminish the resources available for future generations. Would that compromise their ability to meet their own needs?

Mr. Simon Thomas: rose—

Mr. Mullin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to intervene because I am up against the clock.
The Brundtland definition lies at the environmental end of the spectrum of views on sustainable development. At the other end, there are equally sound definitions that favour a fundamentally economic definition. Neither is necessarily nor wholly right. The Government believe that sustainable development must take account of environmental, economic and social considerations.
Finally, we debated the issues relating to amendment No 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, at length in Committee. If I do not get a chance to cover all the arguments in the two minutes that are left to me, a glance at the record will show the Government's case. The amendment relates to clause 1 and would ensure that a Secretary of State cannot take political, commercial or non-developmental considerations into account in exercising the core power. The hon. Lady knows that I have a great deal of sympathy for the intention behind the amendment. One of the Government's reasons for introducing the Bill is to ensure that development assistance can no longer be used for improper commercial or political ends. The amendment seeks to do just that. The question for the House is not whether or not we should use development funds for improper political or commercial ends such as tied aid; there is consensus that we should not do that. The question is how we can prevent such an abuse most securely and effectively. The Bill makes no explicit reference to outlawing improper—
It being Three o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question negatived.

Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that we have just spent about two hours debating one group of amendments to this important Bill and that there has been no filibustering, time wasting, distraction, deviation or unnecessary repetition. The Minister dealt properly with the amendments and the points made in argument and had to gabble to make his responses in time. In fact, he did not quite make it. There are now three groups of amendments that we shall not be able even to consider before Third Reading, for which an hour has been allocated. Is there any way that the programme motion can give us the flexibility now to continue to discuss those important amendments before we come to Third Reading? If rot, is that not an indictment of the Government, who have been unacceptably heavy-handed in curtailing debate and the proper scrutiny of this important Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I am bound by the order of the House agreed to earlier. I regret that there is no room for flexibility.

Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact remains that there are three amendments on the vital matters of sector-wide

development assistance, the involvement of non-governmental bodies and the renewal of the Bill. I know that you do not have the power to intervene but you listened to the whole debate and I am sure that you appreciate that there has been no time wasting. The Bill is not controversial or party political; no one is going to attack the Government from a party political viewpoint. If Government Members told you now that they would like to allow discussion of further amendments, would that be possible?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, I am bound to follow the order of the House. Consideration has been completed.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not within your power to draw the attention of the business managers of the House to the dissatisfaction of the House with the time allocated to debating the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order, but a point for debate.

Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I were to move a motion that the House should consider the remaining three groups of amendments and the House divided on that issue, surely, as a sovereign House of Commons, we have the ability to decide to debate those issues for another 45 minutes?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat once again to hon. Members that the House has already made a decision and I must abide by that decision and the order of the House.
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The major reason for introducing the Bill is to ensure that development assistance can no longer be used for improper commercial or political ends. Under the Bill, there will be none of the ambiguity that allowed a previous Secretary of State to support the Pergau dam. There will be no basis for the re-establishment of the aid and trade provision or, indeed, any improper links between aid and trade. The Bill reflects and supports the United Kingdom's development effort. The Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 allows the Secretary of State to provide assistance for the purposes of
promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the welfare of its people".
Those purposes have not greatly constrained the Government's ability to refocus our country's development effort on the reduction of poverty, but we believe that it is not enough that legislation merely allows us to do most of the things that we need to do.
The Bill will ensure that we make the most effective contribution possible to the reduction of poverty. First, it requires that our development effort, with the exception of assistance to overseas territories and assistance given in response to man-made or natural disasters and emergencies, must be likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty through sustainable development or welfare


improvement. Secondly, it provides a wider range of tools for achieving that aim. It provides for the use of a wider range of financial instruments than are available under the 1980 Act, including shares, options and guarantees. Those instruments will allow us to capitalise on the enormous potential contribution of the private sector to poverty reduction, with less risk of distorting markets, creating unfair competition or compromising companies' incentive to operate efficiently and sustainably, while retaining greater control and influence over the long-term use of Government funds.
The Bill will also place on a proper footing the Secretary of State's support for organisations undertaking development awareness and advocacy activities. The Government believe that if we are to succeed in meeting international development targets, we need to build greater awareness and understanding of development issues across the UK and internationally. Such support is currently possible only on the basis of the Appropriation Act 1999.
May I say a word about an issue that was not touched on in our debate a moment ago, but which was mentioned in Committee? I have considerable sympathy with Members who have spoken in favour of an annual debate on development in this House, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I hope that the House can find the time to hold such debates in future, but it is inappropriate—as I am sure everyone will realise—to use legislation to determine the allocation of parliamentary time, as some amendments sought to do. Whether we have an annual development debate is a matter for the House authorities.
May I also return briefly to tied aid, since I was cut off in mid-flow a moment ago? As I said, we had a good debate on the issue in Committee, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) had a chance to make again on the Floor the powerful arguments that she made in Committee. I shall repeat our position: the clear statement of principles and purposes of development assistance will ensure that any improper use of development assistance is ruled out. As I have said, under the Bill, there will be none of the ambiguity that allowed a previous Secretary of State to support the Pergau dam and there will be no basis for the re-establishment of the aid and trade provision. That position may not be the most publicly attractive, but we have been advised that it is the most effective safeguard against the improper use of aid funds.
I appreciate that the hon. Lady will not agree with me, but I hope that she will at least accept that we took seriously her representations on the subject. We had a long meeting with officials who advised the Government on the matter and, although we may have not succeeded in convincing her, we have considered carefully the points that she and other hon. Members have made. The most effective means of achieving the goal sought by her—and us—is the Bill as worded. It is no failure not to mention tied aid in the Bill. There would be a failure if the Bill allowed aid to be used for improper political or commercial purposes. I can reassure the House that the Bill prevents such misuse, and that therefore we will not fail.
This is a short, straightforward and important Bill. I welcome cross-patty support for its fundamental aim of focusing British development assistance on the reduction of poverty and it is a pleasure to commend it to the House.

Mr. Streeter: We share with the Government a common objective: we find the abject poverty experienced by 1.3 billion people in the world utterly unacceptable. Most of us in this Chamber will have travelled and seen that with our own eyes and listened to people's stories. Such people have nothing—no proper job, no access to food, clean water, health care or education, and worst of all, often no hope.
It is morally inexcusable and offensive that we should see so much poverty in our world. Increasingly, in this globalised environment, it is a matter for us all. There is now no escape, no "head in the sand" attitude to be taken, no passing by on the other side. We cannot continue to live in an interdependent, multi-media, globalised environment without straining every sinew to do what we can to meet the needs of the world's poorest people. My conviction is that we can do a lot—by Government action, through charities and non-governmental organisations, at multilateral level and through individual effort. We can make a difference and therefore we should make a difference.
Today we are discussing what the British Government should do. This Bill sets out the framework for international development over the next few years, and in that respect we wish it well. Obviously, we do not oppose the measure. Its main provision is a poverty focus, and we support that. We have sought to improve the Bill and we shall continue to support measures to ensure that a focus on good governance is right up there in the Government's considerations.
I want to say a word about the Secretary of State. We have supported much of her effort over the past four years. This is probably our last debate before the general election—it is more or less our first in four years, so it is almost certainly our last—So I pay tribute to her work and to that of her Department over the Parliament. She has worked with great conviction and sincerity, and shines as a beacon in a Government among whom there are perhaps not enough conviction politicians. We support what she has done. Much of her work has been extremely effective.
As we have argued, policy on good governance should be reflected in the Bill. I heard what the Minister said; I hope that his assurances mean that his Department has embraced from the arguments that have come at him across the Chamber a fresh awareness of the importance of good governance not just as an optional extra but as the foundation and framework of ensuring that the living standards of the world's poorest people rise over time. Such a framework can attract direct foreign investment and allow the private sector to do its job in creating employment—allowing entrepreneurs to flourish and investment to be made. That is the only way in which living standards will rise over time for those in the poorest countries. He gave his response to our arguments, and we accept it, but we believe that good governance should be at the centre of British aid policy.
We have argued that the Bill should include a provision that money spent through multilateral organisations, whether the European Union, the United Nations or other


agencies, should be focused on poverty as is aid spent directly by the Government. We heard what the Minister said to that. For the first time, we heard his argument about the European Communities Act 1972 and what is covered by the Bill. That is because there was not enough time for that important clause to be considered in Committee. Is not that a stark illustration of the programme motion denying proper debate and scrutiny of legislation? We need not have spent so much time on the issue today, and could have spent more time discussing other issues that we did not reach, had we been able to hear the Minister's response in Committee.
It is important for our Government to be under a legal obligation to stop the scandal of EU aid policy. We all hope that the reforms introduced recently by Commissioner Patten will be effective, but we have little conviction that they will be. He is taking on the overwhelming bureaucratic culture of the EU, which does not deliver. Payments are not made and there is simply no focus. We hope that the reforms work, but believe and fear that they will not. Therefore, we regret that the Government did not take the opportunity at the Nice summit to put the matter on the agenda so that, instead of waiting another five years to review the workings of the reforms, there would already be a mechanism to ensure that more aid is spent bilaterally and more effectively, and that more people are helped.
We wanted a debate today on pitting more resources at the disposal of NGOs and charities because we believe that they are a very effective vehicle for disbursing aid. Of the current Department for International Development budget, 8 per cent. is spent by British NGOs. That is fine, but it should be doubled. We have committed ourselves to doubling the amount over the next Parliament. Pound for pound, that £195 million—the 8 per cent.—provides the best value for Government money. It is a pity that the percentage is so small.
We have expressed concern at the increase of sector-wide funding, which results in lack of control and more scope for abuse, misuse and corruption. We have placed on record several times our deep regret that the Government have failed to introduce an anti-bribery Bill, even though they pledged last year to do so at the earliest opportunity.
We have made such points and argued for improvement of the Bill; our support is not tantamount to a blank cheque. None the less, we shall not oppose Third Reading. We regret the way in which the Bill was railroaded through the House; even by Third Reading, important new clauses and amendments have not been scrutinised. I ask the Government and their business managers how that can be right. We have approached out job as Opposition responsibly. Today, we have made arguments that the Minister has taken seriously, but still there has been no time to discuss the role of British charities in DFID's plans for the future or sector-wick funding. Can that possibly be right? I ask the Government to think again about the way in which they are pushing legislation through the House.

Mr. Davidson: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we would have had much more time to discuss all those important issues had we not been. subjected to

long, rambling, incoherent speeches from Conservative Members in Committee. We could easily have made much more progress had we not gone over points several times.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) responds to that intervention, I should point out that we have spent enough time on that aspect. May we debate giving the Bill a Third Reading?

Mr. Streeter: That is the complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
We support the Bill, although it is not as perfect as it might have been. We accept that poverty deserves to be at the heart of the United Kingdom aid programme and that a focus on reducing it is therefore in its rightful place. We are prepared to work within the confines of the Bill.
In government, we will maintain the aid budget; march towards a figure of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product; focus on good governance; increase the proportion of aid spent via British aid NGOs and charities, doubling it over a Parliament; take steps to end the EU aid scandal to ensure that British taxpayers get value for money and the poorest people of the world receive the help that they so richly deserve; set up Aid Direct, a web-based advice service, which, with the help of the NGO community, will match needs to resources; and crack down on corruption and restore confidence in the British aid programme. We shall support the Government in effectively implementing the measures.
The Conservative party, in opposition or in government, will play its full part in eradicating the unacceptable reality of abject global poverty.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is my last opportunity to speak on international development as I plan to leave the House at the general election. I assure my hon. Friends that I shall be brief. Many served in Committee and are anxious to speak.
I want to put on record the fact that I am very proud of the Government's record on international development and in tackling poverty. The fact that we have had two White Papers in four years, whereas there was not one over the previous 18 years, is a short, sharp point that will speak for itself during the election campaign. However, I want to take this opportunity to pose two questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
The first question relates to the role of non-governmental organisations. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that some NGOs are more successful than others in focusing on helping people to help themselves, rather than simply doing good unto others. Some NGOs now wish to be involved in a campaigning role. How does he see the way forward for NGOs under the Bill and in the framework of the Department's future work?
Secondly, when we were discussing good governance earlier, I had in mind that sad country, Afghanistan, which is the opposite of an example of good governance. It is so hard to know what to do in such a case. The world's media have focused recently on the vandalism of the destruction of age-old statues, but insufficient attention


has been paid to the barbaric cruelty perpetrated upon the local population, especially women. When NGOs have to pull out because they cannot allow their women workers to be put in danger there, it is a sad state of affairs. How do we drive matters forward in countries such as Afghanistan?
I conclude by saying that if anyone can do it, this team will. I look forward to watching the Department's success in future.

Mr. Wells: I, too, welcome the Bill, which will sharpen the focus of the Department's work on the reduction of poverty. This is the first time that that has been set out in statutory form. The Secretary of State and her Department are to be congratulated on introducing the Bill and getting it on to the statute book this parliamentary Session. I know that there were difficulties in persuading our business managers to allow sufficient time for it to come before us. It is much to the credit of the Department that the Bill will reach the statute book, and I hope that it will have a swift passage through the other place, so that it can inform the Department' s work in the next Parliament and for many Parliaments thereafter.
It is a great credit to the Secretary of State also that during this Parliament she produced two White Papers, whereas none had been produced for more than 20 years. The first White Paper set out the poverty focus, and the latest one dealt with globalisation. In terms of legislation and publications, the Department for International Development has been extremely active and well served by the Secretary of State throughout this Parliament. I congratulate her on her achievements and those of her Department.
There are one or two problems with the Bill, which I pointed out on Second Reading and about which I have been nagging away today. Let me elaborate on the definition of humanitarian aid which is missing from clause 3. That could get the Department into difficulties in the future if it is challenged legally through the judicial review process, which I hope it will not be.
A definition of humanitarian aid should contain various elements. Content is not a primary issue, as it was in the definition given to the Select Committee. The demands of working in diverse conflict situations mean that a single definition of assistance is neither feasible nor desirable. More important are the issues of context, objectives and principles.
As regards context, according to the existing Development Assistance Committee definition, an emergency is a situation where the capacity of Government or other authorities and the community is overwhelmed and the population is unable to meet its basic needs. In conflict situations, an emergency may be created by the magnitude or gravity of the humanitarian needs, or by the fact that the acts that have given rise to the needs are very recent. The situation then requires emergency tools.
The objective of humanitarian assistance should be to prevent and alleviate human suffering, to protect life and health, and to ensure respect for the human being. Arguably, such a definition provides for protecting and re-establishing livelihoods, not just saving life. In other words, unlike development assistance or political

intervention, humanitarian assistance is concerned with the preservation and dignity of individuals on the basis of their humanity, not on the development of particular political or economic systems, or on the basis of political affiliation. Clause 3 rightly absolves the Secretary of State from adopting pro-poor policies in respect of humanitarian assistance.
The principle of impartiality, which follows from the argument that I have set out, is crucial to humanitarian aid. Humanitarian actors should not discriminate on the basis of nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. Resource allocation should be guided solely by people's needs, with the most urgent cases of distress receiving priority, on whatever side those in distress are fighting.
The ability of humanitarian organisations to operate legally and safely in a conflict situation is determined by their ability to demonstrate their independent character. Actual and perceived involvement of a donor Government in the workings of international humanitarian organisations potentially compromise that independence.
A definition of humanitarian assistance would not provide a quick fix to the complex dilemmas facing humanitarian actors, including donors, but it would reaffirm in law existing policy commitments and provide a benchmark against which policy could be assessed. It would reiterate in UK law the existing DFID policy commitment to uphold international law. It would put in place a central plank in a rights-based approach to development, which I know the Secretary of State supports.
A definition of humanitarian aid would complement an ethical dimension to foreign policy, which I believe the Government still support, and it would cement the independence of the Department for International Development from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is an important principle. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) stated, should the Conservative party be elected and he be the Secretary of State, the Conservative Government would maintain those as separate Departments. I welcome that.
A definition of humanitarian assistance would provide a statutory base for policy, in place of the soft policy of internal statements. Finally, it would conform to public expectations and understanding of the purpose of humanitarian aid. Those are forceful and important arguments for making sure that humanitarian aid is used for humanitarian purposes, and that we do not undermine the essence of humanitarian aid, which is given so effectively and generously, notably by the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations, with Medecins sans Frontieres and others. To undermine that would be a serious mistake.
I shall not take up much more of the House's time on Third Reading, as I know that others want to speak. I congratulate the Department, the Secretary of State and the Minister on the departmental report 2001 which, for the first time, as a result of work between the International Development Committee and the Department, presents in readable form the policies being pursued by the Department. The report makes that available to a much wider audience than ever before.
I take the opportunity to tease the Department a little about a circumlocution in the introduction to the report. The Secretary of State refers proudly to a 13.8 per cent.


increase in real terms, about which I am delighted, and claims that the Department's budget is at its highest in real terms. She states:
The International Development budget is now at the highest level ever in real terms, and the ratio of Official Development Assistance to Gross National Product is on course to rise from 0.26 per cent. in 1997 to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–2004.
However, the Secretary of State does not mention what the aid budget is as a percentage of gross national product this year. I am not good at mathematics and I probably have the wrong start figures, but I believe that it has risen from 0.26 per cent. in 1997 to 0.31 or 0.28 per cent.—I have been given both figures, but I am not certain which it is.

Mr. Mullin: It is 0.31 per cent.

Mr. Wells: Well, I offer many congratulations, but I should like to tease the Government a little.
That figure means that the aid programme has not reached the average that was achieved under 18 years of Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we achieved an average expenditure of 0.33 per cent. of gross national product. I know that many people find that difficult to believe, bat it is the truth.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The hon. Gentleman's use of statistics is hilarious. He is saying that it took him 18 years to reduce the level significantly, after which we have taken four years to raise it to its current level. The previous Labour Government achieved a figure of 0.51 per cent., and it took the Conservatives 18 years to get down to 0.26 per cent. We have got it up to 0.31 per cent. in four years, and we will certainly reach a much higher level in future.

Mr. Wells: I wanted merely to bring to the House's attention a little-known figure: during the Conservative Government's years in office, an average of 0.33 per cent. of gross national product was spent on aid. I hope that we shall reach that level within the next year; indeed, I hope that we will exceed it. I know that that is the Government's policy, and I congratulate them on it. I wanted only to point out those figures.

Mr. Mullin: I know that the hon. Gentleman means extremely well, but he is being a little naughty. As he said, he is teasing us. Does he recall the figure when Labour last left office in 1979? I shall help him. It was approaching 0.5 per cent.

Mr. Wells: I remember that level, which was the highest that had been achieved by that time. Of course, the figure to which the Under-Secretary refers was not an average, but spending approached, if not matched, that level in 1979. I wanted to point out that the Conservative party is not completely neglectful of the needs of overseas development, and that we contributed to those needs an average of 0.33 per cent. of gross national product.
The worrying figure, which is not a tease, is the fall in private flows. I think that we will have to examine how we can improve that figure. Private flows form a major part of British assistance to developing countries, and always have done. In 1996, they accounted for £11.3 billion, but they fell to just £3.8 billion in 1999.

That is a serious problem for us all. If we have the ambition to improve that figure, we must take measures to encourage private flows. After all, private investment is designated by the White Paper as the engine of development. The departmental report also contains private investment measures that will have to be considered.
Bribery and corruption are another major problem. I commend to the House the report on corruption that was produced by the Select Committee on International Development. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, there is a need for the Government to introduce legislation as quickly as possible to ensure compliance with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery of public officials overseas. Indeed, we must also press on with trying to get the private and public sectors to adopt anti-corruption measures both in this country and overseas. Without those efforts, we will not achieve good governance either here or overseas, and we will not get the development that we would like to see as a result of our increased public sector investment in the third world.

Mr. Worthington: I was sorry that I could not be present earlier, when hon. Members failed to reach amendment No. 1, which I tabled. I was involved in other development work on the Standing Committee that is considering the International Criminal Court Bill.
However, I want to use my amendment as an expression of concern about the way in which the House deals with development issues. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) gave my point away. He spoke about having the first debate in four years at which the Secretary of State was present. I remember years when not even the Under-Secretary attended debates, as he was in another House. There were no debates on development. The Bill is the first such development measure in 20-odd years, and it is possible that no other Bill will be introduced for another 20 years, as international development does not lend itself to domestic legislation. There have been years in which not a single debate on development has occurred in the House, and there may be such years to come.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said some kind words about my amendment. I am not convinced that it is perfect, but I hope that we will find some way of achieving an annual debate on development issues. To my mind, development is becoming increasingly important in the life of this country. It has gone up the agenda, partly because of the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team. The Opposition talk constantly about establishing an aid agency and giving aid. Indeed, that is all that they talk about. This Government have established a Department for International Development that is a different sort of creature. It is much more than an aid agency. Under my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Department is concerned with the major issues facing the world today.
I should like to list some of those issues. They include the activities of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the aim of eliminating world poverty. They also include globalisation, corruption and HIV-AIDS. The Department is about the very


sustainability of the planet. It is concerned with the relationship between north and south on trade issues such as the price of drugs. Indeed, it is concerned with every trade issue. Those and many other matters surface in the Department's work, but they are not discussed in the House. When we consider what goes on in the House, we must ask whether it is surprising that many people—especially the young—wonder whether we live in the same world as that which concerns them.
Many hon. Members will know of the success of Jubilee 2000 in tapping into that public concern about development issues. In particular, people are concerned about debt. It is in relation to that concern that the big meetings occur. I was once asked to stand in for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at a meeting. I went to St. Albans cathedral to be faced with a huge congregation. That is not my usual experience. Hundreds of people attended a meeting on that particular issue. That is what people are concerned about and it is where today's politics lies, but their anxiety is not reflected in this House. We do not talk about it. What does the House say about the incredible pandemic of HIV-AIDS? The International Development Committee produced an excellent report on that issue. It pointed out that three times as many lives are lost through AIDS each year as are lost through war or aggression. What does this place say as a forum for debate? It says nothing.
I tabled a modest amendment to try to ensure that we have at least an annual debate on development. There are precedents for that arrangement. There is a regular debate on Wales, and even the armed services regulations have to be approved annually, but development receives no such consideration. If there is another way of introducing such an arrangement, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider it. We must face up to the fact that the way in which the House deals with development issues—and, indeed, some other issues—is not satisfactory. We spend a lot of time on issues that are much less important than those with which the Department for International Development deals. We must address that problem, which is what my amendment sought to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his considerable influence to deal with the matter, as he has achieved much more in the past than overcoming opposition to such proposals. I have every confidence that when the Bill returns to this House, it will at least contain provision for an annual debate. My faith is placed in him.

Dr. Tonge: I wish to add my comments to those of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) about the Secretary of State who, sadly, has left her place. She has been an excellent Secretary of State, and we have all admired the work that she has done. She is sometimes terrifying, but always inspiring. She has led two Ministers and a Department, all of whom have worked equally hard, and I congratulate them all. The Bill is a suitable finale for their first term of office, and I thank them all for their work.
I welcome the reassurances that I have had from the Minister that there will be no more tied aid and no more aid for trade from the Government. He provided those reassurances many times, which is just what my

amendment was intended to make him do, and I am delighted that he did it. My beady eyes will be on the Department to ensure that it sticks to those worthy ideals.
Those ideals will depend a great deal on co-ordination with other Government Departments, which is a theme to which I have returned many times during this Parliament. It is all very well DFID having great purposes and being determined to relieve poverty, but those ideals must be backed by the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 Downing street. and I hope that they will remember that.
I use as an example the fact that we still await a decision on export credit guarantees for the Ilisu dam. If those are granted to Balfour Beatty for that project, other Departments will be going against DFID's ideals, because we know that that project will create poverty and hardship, which, presumably, DFID will then have to alleviate. Therefore co-ordination between Departments is important.
I have constantly asked for such co-ordination in the area of conflict prevention and arms control, which is another theme to which I have returned over and over again in this Parliament. On that point, I can end on a good note because the draft Bill on the control of arms has been published. I doubt whether I shall understand much of it without many people to help me out, but I shall take it home for Easter, and I thank the Government from the bottom of my heart for publishing it. We have waited for four years to see it and now at last it is here.
Lastly, I return to the theme of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). The proportion of GNP that we spend on aid is interesting. Looking at a House of Commons paper on international development I saw, sadly, that in 1999, under this Government, that fell to 0.23 per cent. It is slowly rising and the intention is that it should continue to rise, and I am well aware that it is at the highest level in real terms for many years, but if we are to continue increasing the proportion of GNP that we spend on aid at the same rate as we are doing at the moment, it will take 50 years to achieve the 0.7 per cent. that is recommended by the United Nations, and I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to reflect on that. I do not want to wait 50 years to equal some Scandinavian countries which are already spending 0.7 per cent. of their GNP.
It is essential that we do that. The relief of poverty is not only the right thing to do, but, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) gave, it is in our interests and in the interests of our children and grandchildren that we take a firm stand on development and ensure that poverty is alleviated worldwide. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John McFall: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill for the simple reason that, as has been said, for 18 years nothing at all was done. It is at the centre of the Government's thinking. The international conference on the abolition of child poverty in February was attended by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as well as many international guests. The Chancellor's presence demonstrated that this is a serious issue, which is at the heart of Government, and that is a consequence of the Bill. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Secretary of State on that.
Much has been made of good government, particularly by the Opposition, but this is a humanitarian issue. There are instances where Governments are disengaged from the community and it is important that we put resources in on the ground. We should never forget that 30,000 children die needlessly every day for lack of access to clean water, proper sanitation and basic medicines. The humanitarian case overrides the consideration of good government.
The other big issue on which the Secretary of State and others should focus now is international trade. Trade barriers cost poorer countries £500 million a year, 14 times more than they receive in overseas aid. The next big battle for the Government will be to ensure that the trade barriers are reduced and that free trade is allowed for third-world countries.
The other important aspect is alternative development strategies. They are complex, but it is important not simply to take the word of third-world Governments and others that something is being done. If we are to ensure that anti-poverty strategies are at the heart of our approach, we need alternative development strategies, which render individuals, campesinos and peasants, the opportunity to forge a living. In the previous debate, drugs from South America and elsewhere were mentioned, but it is no use eliminating drugs if people are not given the encouragement of economic support.
Lastly, perhaps because of my background, I come to education, which is the best anti-poverty strategy that there is. We should not forget that 130 million children in the world, two thirds of whom are girls, do not attend primary school.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will shortly leave Parliament, and would he care to compliment her on the way in which she has continually brought to the attention of the House the necessity for education, health care and aid in the third world? She has done a wonderful job during her time in this Parliament.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away because that was my next point. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has been in the House the same length of time as I have been and has been a good colleague to me and to others. She has pioneered many social justice issues, and, along with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), and not forgetting the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), has considered international development and other third-world issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend. I am told that when the leaves the House she intends to take up politics seriously.

Mr. Worthington: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as well as all those admirable qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), she was born on the same day and in the same year as Tina Turner?

Mr. McFall: That certainly takes my breath away. I am told that she does a good impersonation.

Mrs. Fyfe: Would my hon. Friend like me to sing a song?

Mr. McFall: I had better return to my peroration. I mentioned that 130 million children do not have the

chance of an education, despite it being a fundamental human right, a social justice right and an economic right. We must ensure that those individuals play their full part in the world and that the consequences of the Bill are felt worldwide.
The Government have made great strides; other Members have mentioned the United Nations contribution target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. Let us work at it year after year so that we achieve it. All hon. Members, irrespective of party, will applaud that.

Mr. Rowe: I welcome the Bill and I am sorry that there was no reason to include the importance of development education in it. I support the point that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made about instructing everyone in the nation about the importance of the money that we give for international development.
I have suggested to the Minister privately that it would be worth while asking every individual in the nation to consider their expenditure and ask themselves what they can buy with 0.5 of 1 per cent. of their income and whether it is worth more than giving fresh water to someone who is dying for the lack of it, or creating an opportunity for someone in the developing world. I believe that most people's generosity would lead them to conclude that spending 0.5 of 1 per cent. of their income on the developing world was well worth it.
If we cannot appeal to people's sympathy and compassion, we should appeal to their self-interest. If we do not do that in our globalised environment, we shall be overwhelmed by difficulties that originate in the developing nations.
Cambodia is one of the poorest countries on earth. Forty-six per cent. of the population is under 15 and 2.5 per cent. is over 65. What on earth will the 46 per cent. do when, next year or the year after, they try to enter a labour market that does not exist? Such instability will rage around the world.
What will happen to the 23 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa if they have nothing to do and nowhere to go? They will not be able to live. They, too, will constitute a huge element of instability. Initially, the developed world will be asked to try to help, but it will ultimately discover that it is being attacked. Similarly, the Victorians decided to construct drains for the whole population when they discovered that the rich would catch cholera if they did not. We should take account of such self-interest in our education programme.
I am delighted that the Department for International Development has published a document on disability. The disabled are always the poorest of the poor; they suffer the greatest disadvantages. Although the document is so general that it does not commit the Department to much, it is at least a beginning for an issue that needs to be taken seriously.
I urge the Department to work with those admirable non-governmental organisations that are beginning to consider their accountability. We should try to ensure that we bring into a net of serious accountability as many NGOs that work in development as possible. Many NGOs currently conduct their development work to their own agenda, which is not always to the benefit of people in the developing world. Such accountability is not


good enough. I am delighted that Oxfam, the World Development Movement and others are working together to try to create a better system. I hope that Ministers will take it into account. We did not have the chance to discuss that when we considered the amendments.
I commend the Bill. I believe that the Department is doing a good job on the whole but that it could do better.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and to add to the tributes to him. He has applied himself wonderfully not only to international development, but, as he showed in his speech, to disability, care in the community and other caring issues. I like to believe that his period at the then Scottish Office stood him in good stead.
We do not have enough time to pay tribute to all the achievements of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). For me, she is the personification of the Glasgow logo that shows an enormous, broad smile and carries the slogan, "Glasgow smiles better".
We are considering an excellent Bill from an outstanding Department. The mood of the debate and the atmosphere in the House today is much better than on Second Reading. Development education is therefore making progress, perhaps even on the Opposition Benches. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) in calling for more debates in Government time. However, I say gently to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that when I held his job, I persuaded the shadow Cabinet to have a full day's debate in Opposition time.
I welcome the Government's confirmation of their essential strategy of poverty reduction and the fact that they are trying to tackle positively from a base of achievement problems that millions of people face throughout the world. Time does not allow me to deal with many figures, and I shall cite only one. When the Callaghan Government fell and Judith Hart was Minister for Overseas Development, our contribution to the United Nations aid figure was 0.52 per cent. In 1997, we inherited a figure of 0.26 per cent. from the previous Government. I look forward to the achievement of a 45 per cent. increase in real terms by 2004.
I welcome our strategy for health, education and HIV-AIDS. Many of us have witnessed severe problems such as the land mines in Angola, the terrible events in

Rwanda, HIV-AIDS in Uganda and the compelling need to tackle debt cancellation and restructuring. The Government have done the latter, to their enormous credit. Whatever happens it the coming weeks, we can look the British people in the face. Their support for the Brandt report led to the biggest ever delegation and lobby to Parliament. They were right, and their priorities were right. The Bill means that we can face the rest of the world, especially the developing countries, which deserve the best. The Government and the excellent Department for International Development have made a great start.

Mr. Leigh: In a couple of minutes, all hon. Members will support a Bill that states:
The Secretary of State may provide any person or body with development assistance if he is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
That is clear, but there is no point in giving the Secretary of State the tools if we do not provide her with the means to do the job.
One must put facts on the record. In 1996, under the Conservative Government, the figures for aid were 0.2 per cent. of gross national product for official flows and 1.83 per cent. for total flows. In 1999, under a Labour Government, the figure fell to 0.23 per cent. of GNP for official flows and 0.69 per cent. for total flows. Even taking the Government's spending plans for the next two years into account, they will have given less aid as a percentage of GNP over the Parliament than any previous Conservative Government in more than 30 years. Yet in their manifesto, the Government pledged to increase international development aid to 0.7 per cent. of GNP.
Under the previous Conservative Government, aid spending as a proportion of GNP totalled an average of 0.3 per cent. per year. Under Labour, the figure for the past three years has been only 0.25 per cent. Even if we take account of Department for International Development forecasts for aid spending in the next two years, the figure is only 0.2 per cent. The years 1997 to 2000 show an average of 0.26 per cent. That is not good enough.
It is not good enough that the European Union accounts for a third of the Department's total spending. The Secretary of State described the EU as the worst aid agency in the world. We should we proud of the Bill, but ashamed of the Government's record.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising today, do adjourn until Monday 23 April.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the first speaker, I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.

4 pm

Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to raise the issue of Cyprus. As hon. Members know, Cyprus is often discussed in the House, and rightly so. I declare an interest at the outset. I chair the all-party Cyprus group, to which members of all the major political parties belong.
Britain is one of the guarantor powers for the island of Cyprus, along with Greece and Turkey. Following the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 by the Turkish military forces, Cyprus has remained a divided country. The south of the country is under the control of the democratically elected Government of the Republic of Cyprus; the north of the island, with the support of the Turkish army, has now become the supposedly independent state of northern Cyprus. I say "supposedly independent state" because, after many years, that state is recognised only by Turkey. It is not recognised by the United Nations, the European Union or the Council of Europe, and it is most certainly not recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom.
Since the events of 1974, many attempts have been made to find a solution that would safeguard the interests and security of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. There are without doubt Turkish Cypriots who want a settlement. They see that, in the years since 1974, nothing has taken place that has led to any meaningful development in the economy or in the day-to-day lives of the people who live in northern Cyprus.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), visited Cyprus last month. He sent me a letter following that visit, in which he told me of the people whom he had met. What he did not say and what I have not seen in any official statement is what discussions he had with the leading politicians in the (north and south of the island. That is one of the reasons why I have sought a debate in the House this afternoon.
Since 1974, repeated attempts have been made to find a settlement. Many organisations, countries and politicians have been involved in discussions. There have been many opportunities to obtain a settlement. The real issue for many hon. Members has been and still is Mr. Denktash, who has only one objective—recognition of the state that he has created in northern Cyprus.
Over the years, the United Nations has passed many major resolutions on Cyprus. All have clearly set out the type of settlement that the United Nations wishes to see in place to protect Greek and Turkish Cypriots, to rebuild the economy of the north, and to bring meaningful peace and prosperity to the whole of the island. After all the attempts that have been made, one has to ask why it has not been possible to reach a settlement. I suggest that one can sum up the reason in a few words: Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Turkey are the reason why there has not been the progress that one would have liked.
One could give many examples of the promises and the actions of Mr. Denktash that have caused the despair that now prevails in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the United Nations proximity talks. Many of us thought that they could be the breakthrough to meaningful discussions on the future of Cyprus. No one has done more in recent years than President Clerides of Cyprus to show a willingness to involve Turkish Cypriots in discussions and to show how those in northern Cyprus can be part of the discussion of the future of Cyprus—by which I mean all aspects of its future.
Cyprus has applied for membership of the European Union. President Clerides has repeatedly called on Mr. Denktash to join him in the talks on Cyprus' application, but Mr. Denktash has always refused to take part. I ask the Minister to outline the present position regarding the proximity talks. Are they still on? Do they still have any real meaning? What is the British Government's position on those talks?
I have already spoken of Turkey's role in northern Cyprus. The statements that Turkish politicians make on northern Cyprus and their visits to it are hardly the actions of politicians who believe that northern Cyprus has nothing whatever to do with Turkey and is solely the responsibility of Mr. Denktash. I do not think that anyone anywhere in the world believes that. I make those comments because everyone in the House knows that Turkey's great wish is to join the European Union. If it really wants that, does it have no role to play in ensuring that the proximity talks take place and real progress is made in them?
I have already talked of the so-called state of northern Cyprus and the views and demands of Mr. Denktash that his state be recognised before he will enter into any real discussion on the future of Cyprus. As he knows, because he has been told repeatedly, that recognition will not take place. There will be no recognition of the state that he created.
Cyprus is important to Britain because both countries are members of the Commonwealth. After almost 27 years of occupation and countless talks and discussions, what real progress has been made towards a meaningful settlement? One has only to read the statements and views of the United Nations on why there has been no development that could lead to a settlement. In a word, the reason is Mr. Denktash. He is the reason why there has been no progress. What is the United Kingdom's position on the proximity talks? I accept that we support them, but are we doing enough to ensure that they are on the road to meaningful discussions? What is the EU doing? What is the United States of America doing?
Richard Holbrooke, former US permanent representative at the United Nations under the Clinton Administration, said in a television interview on 1 March this year:
The primary blockage at this point lies with the leadership in Northern Cyprus.
Could anything be clearer? Could there be a greater indictment by a senior world politician of Mr. Denktash than that statement?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, will clearly convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the dismay of many Members of Parliament, and the need both for much greater effort to restart the talks and for Mr. Denktash, and especially


Turkey, fully to understand the role that they must play in seeking meaningful progress for the benefit of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to be called in the Easter recess Adjournment debate. I wish to raise three issues of concern to my constituents and then to comment on foot and mouth disease.
The first issue relates to crime and police manpower in the borough of Barnet. We all know that, for decades, until the beginning of the 1990s, the number of recorded crimes soared. From about 1992, there was a gentle reduction—perhaps the adjective is not appropriate—in the Metropolitan police area until about two or three years ago, when there was suddenly a significant upswing of 8.7 per cent. in recorded crimes. That coincided—I am sure it was not coincidental—with quite a significant fall in the number of police.
The point to be made about police manpower in the Metropolitan area is that it is not only a question of putting in place policies and incentives to recruit people to the force. It is particularly necessary to try to keep them, because there is a well above average number of early retirements, retirements or transfers to other police forces.
Barnet was dealt with disproportionately badly for two or three years, although I recognise that that changed very recently. Five years or so ago, manpower stood at over 700 officers. The difficulty is that, since 1997—I think that it was in 1998 or 1999—that part of Hertsmere has, rightly, been removed from the Metropolitan area; the Metropolitan police area is now within the confines of the Greater London area. However, I cannot believe that 150 or so officers should have been transferred from my borough to Borehamwood. The total fell about 18 months ago to only 479 police officers, serving a borough with a population of 320,000. The minimum shift strength in the borough was 32, but only 22 were available. Even the Labour/Liberal Democrat council was moved to condemn the Government for not providing the resources and to express concern about the increase in crime.
We now know that there is to be an increase—we hope to get about 64 of the 1,050 extra police that have been promised for the Metropolitan police area. Who is providing the extra 1,050? Is it the Government, or is it Mayor Ken Livingstone? What I do know is that, in order to provide the extra 64 officers in Barnet, this year, the Greater London Authority precept on council tax payers has risen by no less than 22 per cent.
The second issue that I wish to raise concerns the NHS in the borough. I have never had so many complaints not only about waiting list times, but about waiting to get on waiting lists, postponed operations, and facilities in the local hospital. Despite the fact that phase 1A of Barnet general hospital's redevelopment was completed in April 1997—we are looking forward to the completion of phase 1B, hopefully in a year's time—the facilities in many respects still leave much to be desired. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem.
It is not just a question of increasing resources, which have certainly increased in the past four years, as they did in the previous 18 years. It is almost incredible that,

in 1979, expenditure on the NHS throughout the United Kingdom was only £8 billion. It had risen to £42 billion 18 years later, in 1997, but to listen to the criticisms levelled at it before 1997, one would not have known that. I concede the point to Labour Members: they have increased the resources for the NHS, but there are still valid criticisms to be made, and shortages and unfairnesses to be tackled.
The third issue is the appalling state of the London underground. My constituency, unfortunately in this respect, nestles at the end of the Northern and Piccadilly lines. Again, I have never had so many complaints about the service before. I believe that my constituents are pragmatic people. They do not much care who runs the London underground or, indeed, other public services. What they want is a reliable and efficient service at a reasonable cost and to be able to travel in reasonable comfort. Since the Government came to power, despite their promises, not a penny's extra private investment—or any private investment—has gone into the London underground. I do not want to take sides between the Government on the one hand and Mayor Livingstone and Bob Kiley on the other, but I wish the Government would get their act together and get on with devising a structure that will lead to the necessary investment going into our tube system.
I finish with a comment on the dreadful foot and mouth disease. That issue is of concern in our towns, as it is in our countryside. We in Chipping Barnet, in the very north of London—we do not nestle in the Cotswolds—are perhaps well placed because we are where the metropolis meets the countryside. London Members in particular will know that there are thousands of acres of green belt within the Greater London area and that, on many of them, there are farms with livestock.
The point that is repeatedly driven home to me and to my constituents is that town and countryside are interdependent. That very interdependence strengthens the fabric and unity of our nation. I hope that the Government will respect and recognise that, as they seek to tackle this dreadful disease which is affecting an industry that was already suffering very badly.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I do not know any more than anyone else whether this will be the last recess Adjournment debate before the general election, but, to take as a working hypothesis that the summer recess Adjournment debate will come after the general election, it is not a bad time to do a little stocktake on the past four years. I want to begin by doing a stocktake in my constituency.
My desire to do so was triggered by my visit last Friday to a sure start scheme in Overdale in my constituency—a scheme with which I was obviously already familiar. We are talking not about words or about speeches: we are talking about real bricks and mortar on the ground, and the provision of real facilities. To see in Overdale a brand new family centre, to see people employed there in a brand new nursery, with things such as toy libraries, to see the home-visiting facility for families who need the support, to have met the 100th mother who had, if you like, voted with her feet to join the scheme—none of these things is compulsory; people will benefit from them only if they want to do so—was a source of great pride to me: pride in both the Government and the Labour-controlled local authority.
I was particularly proud because that scheme is not a one-off, out-of-the-blue scheme. It is consistent with a timeless principle: we should try to give all our children an equal chance. Although I am particularly proud of that achievement, there are many others. I should like to mention a couple of them.
Three or four weeks ago, at the Princess Royal hospital, we opened a brand new maternity unit. That national health service unit can bear comparison with maternity units anywhere else in the public sector or in the private sector in the United Kingdom and probably anywhere abroad. It has terrific facilities, including proper facilities for visiting children. Any Government, and certainly any constituency Member of Parliament, would be proud of that unit. There has also been a £650,000 refurbishment of the Princess Royal hospital's accident and emergency unit.
Those are real facilities and real achievements, not just politicians' words. Those improvements have been made not because someone in a focus group thought that they would be a good idea, but because they are consistent with the Labour party's timeless principle that health care should be available free at the point of need and on the basis of need, not the ability to pay.
I could cite many other examples of what has been achieved in the past four years in Telford. There has, for example, been a 73 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment in Telford. Unlike four years ago—bar one or two schools which have specific, local and good reasons why the objective could not be achieved—almost all infant classes now have fewer than 30 pupils. That is a great source of pride.
At the other end of the age spectrum, 9,500 pensioners in Telford are benefiting from the winter fuel payment, and 3,800 pensioners are benefiting from the free television licence. Those are both sources of pride. However, in terms of long-held views, perhaps the most important statistic of all—I do not have constituency figures, but I have figures for the west midlands—is the fact that an estimated 150,000 low-paid workers in the region will benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase.
Those are all real achievements. As the general election approaches, however, I have been puzzled by our opponents' reaction to them. Those achievements—in the health service, child care facilities and reduced unemployment—are not affecting only my constituency. They are not a unique moonbeam shining only on Telford but are affecting every constituency in Britain. What do our opponents say about those national developments? Do they say that they are opposed to them morally and on principle? I very much doubt that they could say that.
Presumably our opponents' only other line of defence to our achievements is to say, "All that would have happened anyway. They are part of an inexorable law of nature." However, they cannot say that either. I remind Conservative Members that they passionately opposed the national minimum wage on grounds of principle and thought that it was fundamentally wrong. They even presented what they thought was, a coherent and principled argument against it. However, the national minimum wage was not achieved by accident.
Conservative Members reacted in precisely the same manner to the new deal and to decreasing youth unemployment. I leave it to them to decide, when the

general election comes, on their own strategy for explaining those improvements in their own constituencies—[Interruption.]
Perhaps the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) does not want to talk about the improvements in his constituency, and I do not blame him for that. However, Labour Members' strategy is to say that those improvements have not simply happened—as some of our opponents like to say when they have nothing better to say—because of opinion polls or focus groups. The fundamental improvements in our health service are the result of the timeless principles on which the Labour party was founded and are building on the greatest achievement of any peacetime Government in the past century—the establishment of the national health service, in 1948, in the teeth of opposition from the Tories.
In the previous Parliament, in 1998, it was a matter of enormous pride to go to Lichfield cathedral to celebrate the 50th anniversary of that great achievement by a Labour Government—the establishment of the national health service. I do not know how many cathedrals have celebrated the 50th anniversary of a Tory Government's achievement, but so far I have not been invited to such an event. Nye Bevan would have been proud of the current modernisation of the national health service.
The national minimum wage also was not the consequence of the remarks of a focus group or the results of an opinion poll but was consistent with the timeless principles of the Labour party. I make no apology for mentioning that a national minimum wage was advocated by Keir Hardie. Indeed, last year was the centenary of the establishment of the Labour party. Who among the 129 delegates who were present—with no money and no resources—at the founding meeting of the Labour party, on 27 February 1900, would have believed that, in 24 years, Labour would be in government and that, at the turn of the century, it would form a Government with a majority that was greater than the total number of founding delegates?
As we set the ground rules and prepare the territory for the general election, I fervently hope that we compare not only Labour's record after four years in office with that of the previous Tory Government after their 18 years in office, but the values that inspire the two parties, how well they have stood the test of time and how well they have served their constituents. If the judgment is made on that basis, I have no doubt whatever about the outcome.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The unfolding tragedy of the foot and mouth crisis clarifies a number of issues. The first is that it is abundantly clear that Ministers cannot be blamed for the outbreak of foot and mouth. In due course, if the Minister for the Environment is right, there will be a public inquiry into the outbreak. Indeed there should be a public inquiry; after such an event, we have to discover the lessons that can be learned. It is tempting to say—although I shall try to keep my remarks fairly narrow—that if Ministers had considered earlier the experience of the 1967 outbreak, they might have been able to avoid some of the mistakes that they have made.
I would be the first to say that I do not envy Ministers waking up one fine morning to discover that the foot and mouth crisis was breaking across the country. Those of us who have been in government, and those of my


hon. Friends who aspire to it, realise that that was an appalling thing for Ministers to have to confront. I say that to set the scene. It would be quite unfair to use the foot and mouth outbreak to attack the Government. There are, after all, many other good reasons for attacking the Government.
In any crisis, however, Ministers have to remain accountable and be prepared to come to the House to answer the questions put to them. When an urgent situation arises in a constituency, Ministers have to be prepared to respond to it instantly. Ministers in this Government, like those in the previous Government, have been prepared to respond to hon. Members who write to them genuinely saying that they have a desperately urgent constituency matter that requires an urgent ministerial response.
The trouble is that that has not always happened in this crisis. One has had to go to the most extraordinary lengths to persuade Ministers to perform their basic function, which is to be accountable to the House and to answer legitimate questions put to them by hon. Members. Thus it was that, on 30 March, I discovered that a landfill site in my constituency would receive carcases from an infected area. One might have thought that I discovered that fact from a letter from a Minister, a telephone call from an official or from the National Farmers Union, but that is not how I learned of it. I discovered the fact from a media contact who said, "You are the local MP. You will obviously be able to tell us why the Government have decided to move carcases from an infected area into that uninfected area."
As that happened 10 days ago, before my innocence had not been entirely destroyed, I decided to try to contact the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, that did not work. Instead, I spoke to the media, the Environment Agency and to similar organisations. Eventually, during the course of the day, I began to piece together what might be happening.
I did not feel that the fact that I had been prepared to start making telephone calls, and to try to put together a picture of what was happening, constituted a sufficient response: I needed to tell my constituents what was going on. By the end of the day I had sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, telling him what I understood from my inquiries to be the position. What I understood was that carcases would be brought in from an infected area, but that they would be carcases that had resulted from the cull welfare scheme—in other words, carcases that were not infected.
Even that was bad enough, however. It would still mean that traffic was being promoted between an infected and an uninfected area. Although the carcases themselves had resulted from the welfare scheme, the situation was unacceptable. I made that point in an e-mail that I sent to the Minister of Agriculture on the same day, but I heard nothing. I heard nothing on the Saturday, or on the Sunday. On the Monday, I had still heard nothing.
I told the Ministry that if I had not received a response by Question Time on Monday, I would have to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I think the record will show that, of the devices I am prepared to use in the House, the arguably bogus point of order is not one; but it must be said that on the Monday, the Tuesday and the Wednesday I had to make three points of order which I

might describe as being of arguable validity, and which those who are less charitable might term thoroughly bogus. They consisted of my asking the occupants of the Chair whether they had had any indication that the Minister of Agriculture wanted to come to the House and confirm what was going on.
Finally, on the Wednesday, I received a letter from the Minister of State that purported to answer my points. I think that the letter was sent only because I was continuing to raise points of order. The letter—from which I will quote one paragraph—is chilling.
It is difficult for me—an aficionado of "Yes Minister", and one who has done some of this sort of stuff in the distant past—to decide whether to admire the subtlety of refusing to give the precise assurances that were requested, or to condemn the sheer brazenness of the assumption that anyone could be fooled for a moment. Following my request that I should be told whether it was true that the carcases would simply be those resulting from the cull welfare scheme, I was treated to this reply. I shall emphasise certain words, because the emphasis that they should receive would not otherwise be apparent.
The Minister of State told me:
The use of landfill is principally for the disposal of sheep and pigs from the livestock welfare disposal scheme of which there are over 1 million animals in the pipeline. Pigs and sheep from neighbouring farms where animals may have been exposed to the virus but not showing visible signs of disease may also be deposited. We are making the very best endeavours to ensure that as far as possible stock from protection zones go to landfill in protection zones. But we cannot guarantee in this extremely serious situation that this will always happen. Also with the recent SEAC decision, where landfill operators are content we will also bury disease free or at risk cattle less than five years of age.
That lack of assurance was completely at variance with everything that I had been able to discover locally. It also meant that when I attended a meeting convened specially by Teignbridge district council at the weekend—because the council wanted to find out what was happening—far from my being able to provide reassurance, I was unable to do anything of the kind.
As a result of that meeting, I sent a detailed message to the Minister of State pointing out that the assurances given flatly contradicted some of what MAFF officials were saying locally—not in letters to me, as the Member of Parliament, but in a circular letter to the chief executives of the various local authorities. I had never heard of a protection zone, and neither had the National Farmers Union.
Let me give an example. MAFF officials have said certain things in correspondence; meanwhile, we are told:
The objective of the authorities responsible for the disposal arrangements is to ensure that all carcases are transported for disposal (a) within infected areas or (b) within non infected areas, but not from one area to another.
Again, what was implied by MAFF officials and what was said by the Minister were completely at variance.
By that stage, my confidence that I would receive a response from Ministers had disappeared. In a detailed letter that I sent to the Minister of State after the meeting on Friday, I wrote that I saw only one remaining opportunity to find out from Ministers what was going on. I told the Minister that she must ask a number of specific questions, and added that if she did not ask them I would raise them on the Adjournment.


The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is present. On such an occasion, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would normally say, "That is extremely interesting. It has nothing to do with me, but it is super to see you. I will refer your comments." It is a time-honoured formula, as is perfectly understandable.
I made it clear to the Minister of State that I was going to send a copy of my letter to the Leader of the House, containing specific questions, and that I would expect those questions to be answered today. I said, possibly more in hope than in expectation, that she might be more successful in getting replies out of her right hon. Friend than I had been.
These are the questions that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer today, as he is present. I want to know whether the order allowing the burial of cattle at Fosterville will be rescinded forthwith. I want to know whether the site at Deep Moor will be used for any subsequent disposals that would otherwise have been destined for Fosterville. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to make it clear that if a Fosterville site continues to be used—I strongly disapprove of that in any event—it should be used only for sheep and pigs in the livestock welfare disposal scheme, and that those animals should not have been exposed to any possibility of coming into contact with the virus. Finally, I want an assurance that in no circumstances will cattle be deposited at Fosterville.
Those are questions of which the Parliamentary Secretary, through his colleague, has had specific notice, and I think that they need to be answered today. It is bizarre that we should have to expect a Minister with no departmental responsibility to measure up to what should be expected of Her Majesty's Government; but if we do not receive answers to those questions today, the people of the west country will form their own impression of what this Government are really all about.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to raise an important matter involving what I believe was a serious miscarriage of justice affecting two of my constituents, Gareth Perrett and Richard Perrett. Both are former policemen. Gareth Perrett was an inspector in Halifax with 29 years' service; his son Richard served in the Odsal division in Bradford for several years. Both had unblemished records.
As MP for Halifax, for many years I have worked closely with Inspector Gareth Perrett. I know him well, and have always found him to be an excellent police officer, completely on top of his brief and well liked and respected in the community.
On 7 February 1998, an alleged incident occurred on a flight from Orlando to Manchester. The two Perretts and a friend were reported by two passengers for disorder: they claimed that the men had had too much to drink, and were noisy. On arrival at Manchester, the three men were met by the police. They were told that a complaint had been made. They were not arrested, and they were not told what the complaint had been: they were allowed to collect their car and drive home to Halifax.
As a senior officer, Gareth Perrett felt that there had been a misinterpretation, or a misunderstanding, of the men's behaviour. He sent a letter to the senior officer at Manchester airport. He thought that he should at least

have been provided with a list of passengers, which would have enabled him to obtain evidence that neither he nor the other two men had done anything wrong. The Manchester police disregarded the letter, and the Crown Prosecution Service did not follow up its suggestions.
At that stage, both Inspector Perrett and his son still had no idea what the complaint against them was. Only when they read a report in the local press did they find that they had been accused of upsetting two passengers. Three months after the incident, a summons was served. The men were accused of being drunk on an aircraft, and using abusive or insulting words in the hearing or sight of a person which might cause harassment, alarm or distress.
On 12 June, my constituents pleaded not guilty to both charges. The second charge was withdrawn, which left them with the charge of being drunk on an aircraft. They have always denied that. The police produced no video evidence, and after they had met them from the plane they had allowed them to drive home. That is difficult to understand.
Gareth Perrett, or Richard, sought evidence from other passengers, but were met by a wall of opposition from Britannia Airways. The investigating police force was not helpful either. My constituents therefore set about finding passengers, and managed to locate a family who had been sitting close to them on the aircraft. That family are completely teetotal—as they made a point of saying in court; they gave evidence that the three men were
only a bit merry and not causing the problems suggested.
The family were the main witnesses and the case collapsed. The two men were declared not guilty and left the court without a stain on their character, although the judge did remark that there might have been some juvenile behaviour.
The two men returned to work. However, their problems were far from over; three months later, they were told to appear at a disciplinary hearing before the new chief constable, who—ignoring both the verdict of the court and the testimony of witnesses who had spoken in their favour—asked both men to resign. Later, at an appeal, a tribunal upheld the chief constable's decision but took note only of his conclusions; the independent evidence was not even discussed.
I took up the case with the Home Office for three main reasons. I am not convinced that the case of the Perretts was fairly investigated either by the Greater Manchester police or the West Yorkshire police. I do not believe that a court's not guilty verdict should have been overturned by a chief constable who had taken more notice of exaggerated press reports. I do not believe that two excellent police officers should have lost their jobs; they are lost to the service, at a period when we are desperately short of good, experienced officers.
The Home Secretary has turned down their appeal; he says that he took into account the response of the chief constable and the recommendations of the tribunal. I am very disappointed that he has done so. I am the last person in the world to condone disruptive or drunken behaviour on an aircraft, but after going into the case in great detail—listening to the local community and reading the proceedings thoroughly—I feel that an injustice has been perpetrated.
Like the court, I do not believe that a serious offence took place. I do not believe that people should be tried twice. I want the Home Office to take another look at


the case. Recently, a senior reinstated police officer pleaded guilty to far more serious offences; we should remember that the Perretts were proved not guilty.
The emotional cost to the family has been tremendous. They are a local family who are well known and well respected. The two men have been under great stress; they have lost income and have experienced personal hurt. I did not feel that the House should adjourn without me drawing attention to this case—I shall certainly pursue it.

Mr. James Wallace: Although politics can be an unpredictable science, I suspect that this may be my last speech in the Chamber—although I continue to have the privilege of representing Orkney in the Scottish Parliament. There have been several highlights during my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, but the fact that I was a Member of the Parliament that delivered a Scottish Parliament—for which my party had campaigned for more than a century—and that I had the opportunity to play a part in that process brings me considerable pleasure.
One consequence of the Scottish Parliament and of legislation passed in this place is that the Orkney and Shetland constituency has been split in two, so when the general election is called I shall cease to have a representative link with Shetland. That is why I want to focus on an important issue in Shetland—one of the major incidents that occurred during my time as a Member of Parliament.
On 5 January 1993, the oil tanker Braer went aground at Garths Ness on the southern tip of Shetland, spilling its cargo of 84,000 tonnes of oil. Regrettably, more than eight years on, there is still unfinished business. I shall devote my remarks especially to the outstanding claims of people who believe that their property was damaged as a result of the spillage.
I declare a personal interest. I have a small cottage about a mile from where the tanker went aground; subsequently, it was noted that the felt roof was warped. The roof was replaced by benefit of the compensation fund at a cost of between £3,000 and £4,000.
Unfortunately, not everyone has been so lucky in having their compensation claims met. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund has the advantage that those who want to claim do not have to prove negligence on the part of the ship owner or the ship's master. In any event, it is sometimes speculative—and would have been in the case of the Braer—whether the owner or master would have had the resources to meet compensation claims. However, the downside of that advantage is that compensation from the fund is limited—in respect of the Braer, it is limited to a pay-out of about £50.6 million.
At the outset, quick payments were needed to help cash flows for the worst affected industries, especially fishing and fish farming. Although there was subsequent criticism that payments were made too quickly, even with the benefit of hindsight it is right that businesses that had lost trade overnight should have been helped over their immediate difficulties.
Claims had to be identified before 15 January 1996. In October 1995, 2,000 claims, amounting to £45 million, had been settled. At that stage, a moratorium was placed

on further payments. Payments were resumed only in May last year, with a dividend of 40 per cent. of approved, unpaid claims being met.
Many of the claims have been subject to court proceedings. It is only during the past few weeks that a judgment has been entered for one of the major cases, so the sub judice rules no longer apply. It relates to claims made by people who believed that their asbestos cement roofs were damaged.
My constituents and their legal representatives have expressed concern that an unduly legalistic approach was taken by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Nit-picking points have been made. Although it is not improper for solicitors and counsel advising the fund to draw attention to how its liability might be minimised, we are entitled to ask whether it is politically or morally proper that a fund set up to compensate the victims of pollution should adopt such an approach.
I shall give the House an example. In the case of a couple whose jointly owned property suffered damage from oil pollution a claim was made by the widow, because her husband, sadly, had died in the meantime. The claim was challenged and compensation was reduced by half because she had sued only in her own name and not as the executrix of her husband's estate. No doubt the challenge was legally correct, but it begs the fundamental question of whether it was morally correct.
I have raised such issues with the fund itself and with successive Ministers with responsibility for shipping. The view seems to be taken that although the Government are party to the convention, it is inappropriate for them to intervene in individual cases. However, if the Government cannot intervene as a member of the fund, who can?
The most significant set of claims relates to damage to asbestos cement roofs. People found that their roofs started to buckle and to show signs of damage about 18 months after the Braer went aground and after dispersant was used to try to clear up the spoil. Although, at first, cases were based on damage by oil, when they came to court they were based on contamination by dispersant. In either event, the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session—Lord Gill—found against the claimants. I do not criticise Lord Gill, as his carefully written opinion reflects the evidence laid before him.
My concern is that the fund undertook several surveys and received reports that it subsequently withheld from the claimants. Those reports may have been helpful to their cause.
In a faxed message to the director of the fund, Mans Jacobsson, in November 1994, Dr. Brian Dicks said:
The recent reports from the Fund's surveyors in Shetland"—
he gives a number of dates—
illustrate a number of the above points, and also contain circumstantial evidence that some current roofing problems may be attributable to oil contamination, based on geographical location and comparison with a small number of controls.
He said that it was important to recognise that a significant part of the comparative control process was provided by the experience gained from the fund's surveyors.
I have subsequently been advised from local sources that a local surveyor, acting on behalf of the fund, submitted to the fund a number of reports concerning damage to asbestos roofs. The principal report concerned


the final six months of 1994, and detailed visits, surveys and periodic inspections of a number of properties, including some done beyond the contaminated area to be used as controls. Another surveyor submitted reports in respect of a number of individual claims, including one of damage to an asbestos roof in the village of Cunningsburgh, where the owners had not even thought of claiming until it was suggested to them by a representative of the fund because of the apparent damage to the roof. Now, five years later, and after litigation, they find themselves with a bill for legal expenses.
Efforts have been made by the solicitors for the claimants at the appropriate point in the proceedings to recover the documents and reports. That was resisted by the fund. No doubt it had a legal basis for doing so and the court adjudicated accordingly, but it misses the point. No one in Shetland asked for an oil tanker to land on their doorstep and spill its load, and if the reports do not support the claimants' case, what is to be lost by their disclosure? If, on the other hand, they do lend support to the claimants' case, that survey changes the whole picture. Whatever may be the strict legal position, surely there is a moral case for the fund not to hide behind legal technicalities, but to compensate those who have suffered loss.
I have asked the fund, both in writing and when I met the director last week, whether he would disclose these documents and, to be fair, he has agreed that he will consider the request. I have addressed a similar request to the shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). I was due to meet him this morning, but unfortunately that meeting has had to be postponed until later in the month. It is important, in the interests of fairness, for these documents to be released. I urge him to use his good offices to recover them. If they do show that there was evidence of the type of damage through contamination that the claimants believe that there is, I believe that an ex gratia settlement from the fund, or indeed from the Government, who had responsibility for the spraying, would be in order.
I wish to raise two further points relating to the Braer. The first concerns expenses. It would be unfair if huge expenses were landed on the doorsteps of those who had the oil land on their doorstep. To be fair, the director of the fund has said that he will not be sending the bailiffs in. Finally, on equality of treatment, there is £3.7 million of unpaid claims already established but only £2.4 million available for further payments. Inevitably, that means a dividend, but others have been paid in full. I have asked successive shipping Ministers how the Government intend to address that inequality, and I still await an answer.
In the House we regularly pay lip service to the adage that the polluter must pay. It is intolerable that the victims of pollution should pay. There is a huge sense of grievance and injustice. There is a belief, too, that a compensation fund should do just that: compensate. I seek the disclosure of the survey reports and an indication of how the Government intend to ensure that there will be equality of treatment.
This is unfinished business. I suspect that I shall not be a Member of the House when it is finished, but I very much hope that it will be concluded in a satisfactory and just way.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. As I explained, it is my wedding anniversary today. I planned a whole evening of fun, frolics and Mrs. Banks, and I would not want to disappoint her. She has not had many fun frolics with me over recent months—or, I hope, with anyone else.
I want to raise a couple of issues on the Adjournment. First, I very much support the Government's decision to delay the local elections—and therefore, we must conclude, the general election. To hold a general election against the backdrop of foot and mouth would not have looked very good, to put it mildly, and it could have been potentially disastrous, given the record of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No one should ever underestimate MAFF's ability to foul up big-time, and the idea of that happening during a general election is too awful to contemplate.
I feel very sorry for my right hon. and hon. Friends who are MAFF Ministers, because they are caught between an agricultural industry seemingly bent on self-destruction and the daleks that staff MAFF, who are always chanting, "Exterminate them, exterminate them!" I really cannot understand why MAFF seems to be obsessed with slaughtering animals.
Bovine tuberculosis has been prevalent for many years, and MAFF's only response seems to be to kill the badgers. I find that totally unacceptable. Badgers are a protected species, but of course the Government have given themselves a dispensation in that regard, and I understand that MAFF is spending something like £34 million over seven years on killing badgers. It is also using surveillance techniques, police helicopters and photographers, and that is just to deal with concerned members of the public and journalists who try to discover what is going on.
There seems to be considerable weight of scientific opinion around the world that badgers are not responsible for bovine TB. Perhaps those at MAFF should look rather more carefully at the standards of animal husbandry before they go around slaughtering thousands of badgers.
Like many things at MAFF, killing badgers seems to be based more on voodoo than science. Of course, the same is true of the mass slaughter of healthy animals during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The slaughter seems to have nothing to do with animal welfare; it is all about commercial viability. Even if we were to accept—clearly, opinion suggests that we should—the slaughter of infected animals, the slaughter of healthy creatures is cruel and wanton, if only because it flies in the face of nature.
Thank God MAFF does not run the national health service, although if it did it would certainly have a dramatic impact on waiting lists! The agricultural industry has played dice with nature for far too long, and now we are paying the price. First, innocent animals pay the price—they are slaughtered in their tens of thousands—and secondly, the taxpayer does so.
I cannot believe something that I read in the newspaper. I very rarely believe what I read in the newspapers, but I hope that it is untrue that Mr. Waugh, the farmer at Heddon-on-the-Wall who is allegedly responsible for starting the foot and mouth outbreak in this country by feeding pigs infected meat, is to receive about £50,000 in compensation. I hope that we will find out whether that


man is guilty. If he is guilty, he should be prosecuted. If he is guilty, he deserves to go to jail; he does not deserved to be given £50,000 in compensation, paid for by the taxpayer. Indeed, others deserve to be punished—those farmers who moved sheep around the country among their own fellows to fiddle the common agricultural policy.
I feel very sorry, obviously, for decent farmers, but they must be protected by eliminating the rogues and crooks in the industry. My own humble opinion is that there should be a farms inspectorate, rather like the factories inspectorate, which would enable inspectors to enter any farm to assess the standards of animal husbandry and other matters that relate to the production of food. The agricultural industry has acted irresponsibly. We should remember that it brought us salmonella in eggs, BSE, CJD and swine fever, and now it has brought us foot and mouth. We do not need to be experts; we just have to understand nature to know that if we fly in its face, something will go badly wrong.
I remember saying from the Opposition Benches that it was obviously plausible that BSE would enter the human food chain, and Ministers saying that there was no chance of that happening. They were being advised by their MAFF officials, and they said that there was no chance, but our own innate sense told us that if animal protein was fed to herbivores, there would be a price to pay. If a species is fed to the same species—same species feeding—there will be a price to pay. People do not need qualifications in animal husbandry to understand those very basic points of nature.
Intensive farming also represents a blatant disregard for nature, and in the end nature will extract a hideous price from us. I only hope that the next Labour Government will implement a full inquiry into how we produce our food, as the Prime Minister promised—assuming, of course, that we have not all been poisoned by then.
The second issue that I want to raise is the culling of harp seals in Canada, around the Magdelene islands in the north of Newfoundland. This year's cull, which is going on at the moment, involves 275,000 harp seals, leading, some experts say, to a decline in the seal population. Hon. Members may not know that there are two methods of killing seals in Canada. In most cases, a sealer will approach a young seal and club it over the head with an instrument known as a hakapik, which has a 1.5 m handle and an iron head with a curved spike on one side and a short, blunt projection on the other. The seal is hooked and dragged to a central location, where it is skinned.
Alternatively, sealers will shoot many seals from boats, incapacitating the seals so a sealer can approach them for clubbing or skinning. In many cases, the group of seals will writhe in agony until they are killed, and it is common for shot seals to skip into the water and bleed to death, because they are lost to the sealers.
An international panel of vets has claimed that as many as 42 per cent. of seals killed were likely to have been alive when they were hooked, dragged and skinned. How on earth can the Canadian Government allow that barbarity to continue? They say that the fishermen maintain that the seals predate on cod, which is leading to a rundown in the cod stocks. However, we know that industrial fishing methods have depleted cod stocks

around the world. There are times when human beings can be venal, selfish and purblind about this planet's resources. The slaughter of harp seals is a disgrace to the entire Canadian nation. What protests have the Government made to the Canadian authorities to let them know how detestable the practice is in the eyes of the public not only in this country, but around the world?
It is a pretty depressing note to finish on, but there are times when I think that human beings as a species are positively detestable. On that cheery note, I set off for a night of fun and to prepare myself for the general election.

5 pm

Mr. Christopher Gill: It might surprise the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) to hear that I agree with a small part of what he said. I, too, am concerned about the wholesale slaughter of healthy animals, but I will not embark on a discursive argument with him because I want to confine my remarks to foot and mouth disease.
I know from personal experience that border controls on the import of meat and meat products into New Zealand are very stringent. That point was confirmed to me at New Zealand house only three weeks ago, when the opinion was given that it is far easier to smuggle drugs and duty free into New Zealand than animal products.
We should contrast that situation with the United Kingdom, where smuggling is now big business, and the smugglers, unlike the totally harmless vendor of a pound of bananas in Sunderland, are having a bonanza. Alcohol and tobacco smuggling now costs the Treasury £4.25 billion per annum and has led to the loss of countless jobs in he brewing industry and the retail sector. Asylum seekers are smuggled—as many as 100,000 entered the country last year, and doubtless there are more in the pipeline. It is impossible to quantify drug running, but drugs are undoubtedly widely and easily obtainable. The Government have lost control in all those areas. Notwithstanding the fact that we live on an island and are separated from our nearest neighbour by 21 miles of sea, or that we are intrinsically a law-abiding nation, smuggling is rife and extends even to the commodity in which I declare an interest—meat.
On 21 March I asked what response the Agriculture Minister had made to a letter from Mr. Lawrence of Ciel Logistics in May 2000 concerning the health risks associated with consignments of bush meat arriving at Heathrow from Africa. The Minister of State answered:
None; the letter was passed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for reply."—[Official Report, 9 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 476W.]
Mr. Lawrence had written to express his concern about the lack of control over the movement of products of animal origin for human consumption via UK ports, with particular reference to Heathrow airport. In his letter of 10 May to the Agriculture Minister he said:
The points I would like to discuss with you in more detail face to face involve the importation of illegal products and the resource required to combat the detection of these goods … The risk to the community is extremely high given some of this product could contain disease i.e. anthrax, foot and mouth etc. Do I need to say more?
Unfortunately for us all, the answer to that question seems to be yes. Mr. Lawrence subsequently had to write


again highlighting the problem. Speaking to the Farmers Union of Wales, he described how at Heathrow his organisation had found
more than five tonnes of illegal meat concealed in suitcases that arrived on 14 flights from Lagos".
He added:
We have also found cases packed with bush rats, antelope meat, fish and monkeys.
When asked in Agriculture questions by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), about personal imports of meat and meat imports the Minister of State replied that
this issue needs to be considered urgently and it needs to be considered at the European level."—[Official Report, 5 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 490.]
In other words, Ministers have consistently said, "Not me guv. I'm only the Minister." These are matters for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, for the European Union or for anyone other than this craven Government.
Nothing better illustrates the Government's whole approach to the foot and mouth epidemic sweeping the country than their failure to heed the warnings, their failure to follow the advice in the Northumberland report that followed the 1967 outbreak, their failure to act decisively and to establish a workable command-and-control system, and the paralysis in the decision-making process that has invariably resulted in too little too late.
Part of the explanation for that miserable state of affairs is the fact that agriculture policy decisions are taken at the centre; there is no local, regional or national autonomy. The agriculture collective in which the British industry is enmeshed is controlled from Brussels. That is why, when the European Union decided to close all livestock markets, the Minister could not without reference to Brussels tell the House whether the United Kingdom could continue to use market premises as collection centres for abattoirs. That is why, to the utter amazement of the British public, the Government—of whom the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is still a member—cannot make the ultimate decision about vaccination. So it goes on.
Last year, I told the House that the common agricultural policy had failed and failed comprehensively. I said:
It has failed producers, consumers, taxpayers and the nation."—[Official Report, 11 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 1075.]
Those words have been echoed by the Prime Minister. Last month, he was reported as saying that the common agricultural policy was
bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, had for the environment and ultimately bad for farmers".
The Prime Minister and I make unlikely bedfellows, but I am delighted to welcome him to the real world.
News bulletins today are saying that, since movement restrictions were imposed, there have been 300 illegal sheep movements. It is impossible to know whether that figure is an overestimate or an underestimate—who knows?—but we know for certain that those illegal sheep movements are a direct consequence of the European Union sheep regime based, as it is, on quotas and headage payments. Unlike the old UK deficiency payment scheme, it is wide open to fraud and abuse.
To return to the Government's handling of the outbreak, a week last Friday I had a site meeting with my constituent, Mr. Michael Holloway of Gwarthlow farm,

Churchstoke. He had been told the previous day that his dairy herd was to be slaughtered. Present at the meeting was an Army officer who assured me that organisationally matters were generally well under control, but that operationally there were problems because there was a shortage of vets and of slaughtermen. That was on the very day that I read in my newspaper that the British Small Animal Veterinary Association had offered to cancel its annual conference so as to volunteer its members to assist the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the cull, an offer that MAFF had apparently declined.
In the meantime, my constituent, Mr. A. C. Webster of Ludlow, who is a qualified slaughtermen, had been refused permission to take unpaid leave to go on the cull even though he was temporarily without work with his employer, the Meat Hygiene Service, which is another agency of government. The facts simply do not add up. If they do, they add up to a picture of muddle and confusion out of which the Government emerge with little credit.
We have the nonsensical situation in which fit animals in restricted areas cannot be consigned to abattoirs, but animals in the welfare disposal scheme apparently can be. We have the ridiculous situation in which healthy animals in contiguous and firebreak areas are being killed sometimes against their owners wishes, while the cull of 1.5 million animals that owners want to dispose of under the welfare disposal scheme is endlessly delayed.
The situation is appalling. Healthy animals are being dispatched, even though there is a massive backlog of carcases to dispose of. In addition, we have the phenomenon of the Minister urging farmers not to appeal against the culling of healthy animals when, from day one, the biggest problem has been the Government's failure to authorise the prompt dispatch and disposal of animals known to be infected. That is against a background of the ban on the export of meat and meat products from other countries with foot and mouth disease being applied on a regional or provincial basis rather than a national basis, as in the case of the Netherlands and Uruguay. In fairness, I note that restrictions on Northern Ireland will be lifted next week, subject to there being no further outbreaks. I welcome that.
In the few seconds remaining to me, I want to deal with another aspect of the crisis and draw Ministers' attention to the plight of my constituents who, through no fault of their own, are without an income. It is self-evident that if one is running a business and there are insufficient customers or profits on sales to cover the overheads, the business is unsustainable. Even worse, if there are no customers, the business must cease trading. It could not be put better—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Shona McIsaac: The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott) was inspiring. I am sure that most hon. Members would echo what he said about the improvements that have been made to many different aspects of public services in their constituencies. However, I want to focus on something on which the Government are not doing so well.
I am concerned about East Ravendale school in the Lincolnshire wolds. Every time I hear Education Ministers say that they are getting rid of outside toilets and mobile classrooms in schools, I want to put up my hand and say to the Secretary of State, "Please, sir. You're not doing that in East Ravendale." The school is successful and I pay tribute to the head teacher, Mike Pickwell, on what he and his teachers manage to achieve in difficult circumstances. To put it simply and succinctly, the conditions in which the children are being taught are not acceptable in this day and age, especially given the Government's commitment on school facilities.
The school has only three girls' and three boys' toilets for a roll of about 130 pupils. Those outside toilets are used by all age groups, from three-year-olds to year 6. It is difficult to supervise children, especially the very young ones, when they use the toilets, which are damp and mouldy. The children always get soaked when they go to them from their classrooms in bad weather and there are no disabled facilities. In addition, the toilets have recently been invaded by rats. I do not want to dwell on that. It is a rural school and there is wildlife around it. However, the rats have caught the imagination of the pupils who recently wrote to me and presented me with some wonderful books that show how they feel about them. Almost every page has a picture of rats. Although the rats are smiling, I do not think that the children are so happy. One picture is of a girl in an outside loo shrieking with horror because the rats are underneath her.
The staff loos are also outside. They have not been invaded by rats, but there are many friendly spiders. There is one toilet for male staff and one for female staff, which have to be used when they get changed for PE lessons. It is impossible to have inside toilet facilities in the school because there is no building in which to put them. All five classrooms in the school are in mobile facilities that are well past their sell-by date and on a slope. They suffer from severe structural problems and inadequate glazing, poor heating and poor ventilation. That means that classrooms are too hot in summer and far too cold in winter; they are overcrowded and there is virtually no room for information technology facilities. I am afraid that rats have taken up residence under one mobile classroom.
There is just one small brick building in the school—the old school hall, which, for metric martyrs in the House measures 9.6 m by 4.5 m, so there is no space in it for inside toilets. The hall is used for teaching the children, but it is also the main entrance to the school so, when anyone visits, lessons are disrupted. We need a new school; it is as simple as that. There is no room for medical facilities in the school; the children cannot do PE properly, and equipment has to be stored in an old garage. Because of the physical geography of its location—there are slopes and steps between mobile classrooms—disabled children cannot go to the school. Even for the able-bodied children, it is very dangerous in icy weather.
Land is available for a new school, and it is owned by the local authority. I am trying to encourage Ministers to assist the local authority to secure funding for a new

school for East Ravendale. A letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was sent to the leader of the council, Councillor Len Taylor, on 30 March, in which he states:
I am very concerned at what you describe, particularly given that I have sought to target funding to eliminate reliance on outside toilets and reduce the level of temporary accommodation in poor condition.
We managed to get officials from the Department for Education and Employment to visit the school on 2 April, when we experienced what was probably the best weather of the year so far. They chose to visit on a lovely spring morning; it was sunny and the bulbs were out. They must have thought that they were visiting an idyllic village in the Lincolnshire wolds. They should have seen it when it was pouring with rain, the kids were getting wet going outside all the time, and damp was being brought into the classrooms. That would have shown them the problems faced by the school.
The school, the parents, the chair of governors, Mark Webb, Councillor Len Taylor, the director of education, Geoff Hill, and I all support the campaign for a new school in East Ravendale, as that is the only way that we are going to tackle the problem of mobile classrooms and outside toilets. The campaign has gone on for too long; I do not want East Ravendale school to be the only school left in the country with outside toilets. If an Education Minister stands up and says that the Government have got rid of outside toilets, I shall jump up again to say, "Oh no you haven't. Get on and help the council to get funding for a new school in East Ravendale."

Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the opportunity before the Easter Adjournment to raise two issues of crucial importance to my constituents, on which something needs to be done urgently.
First, the erection of telecommunications masts by Orange is causing tremendous problems in a residential area of Chelmsford. The mast that is the bone of much contention in the town was refused planning permission by Chelmsford borough council. Orange took the council's decision to appeal with the independent planning inspectorate, which reversed the council's decision to allow that unsightly telecommunications mast to be erected in a residential area, opposite shops and surrounded by domestic dwellings. The mast is unsightly and there is still a belief that masts are a health hazard although, to be fair, the jury is still out on that issue.
Something is seriously wrong when a community is united against having a telecommunications mast in its residential area, the local authority, the Member of Parliament and everyone else are opposed to it, but companies are allowed to put masts up against the wishes of local people. Springfield residents association and local residents in the Bodmin road and Torquay road area of Chelmsford have fought vigorously—as, to its credit, has Chelmsford borough council—although, sadly, to no avail.
The time has come for this House and the Government to look again at the whole issue of planning and telecommunications masts. We have seen just the tip of the iceberg; another wave of masts will have to be erected owing to the popularity of mobile telephones. We need to change planning guidance, so that the views of local


communities and the environmental impact and the possible health hazard of masts are taken more into account.
We must also bring greater uniformity to the decision-making process of the planning inspectorate in Bristol. We in Chelmsford have seen decisions on cases in Stanmore and in Harrow, for example, where applications were made to place similar masts in similar residential areas. The planning inspectorate has said that on grounds of both visual impact and possible health problems those masts should not be erected, yet the inspector who considered the appeal in Chelmsford has allowed erection of the mast to go ahead.
My constituents are perplexed. How can one inspector say no in Stanmore because the mast would be in a residential area, might create a health hazard and would certainly be unsightly, but another from the same organisation say yes in Chelmsford? We must consider the issue as a matter of urgency because it will impact more and more on people's lives and on more and more hon. Members' constituencies.
The second issue that I should like to raise concerns the number of houses that are to be inflicted on the Chelmsford local authority area as a result of the planning diktats of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Over the next 10 years, 12,500 new dwellings are to be forced on Chelmsford. This decade, greenfield sites will be concreted over because Chelmsford does not have enough brownfield land to sustain the housebuilding that the Government are demanding of it. I always thought—the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed this in a written answer to me a year ago—that the 60 per cent. brownfield build figure was a national average. Therefore, areas that can take more than 60 per cent. brownfield site development should have more housing, and areas that do not have enough brownfield sites to meet the target should take less.
We have been landed with the building of 12,500 houses. I particularly resent the fact that 2,500 of them will be nothing to do with the future housing needs of mid-Essex. We are being told to take 2,500 houses in order to relieve pressure on housing in the south of the county. The Government want the Thames gateway to be an area of industrial development and growing employment. Why cannot the housing be in that part of the county in order to sustain the jobs that the Government rightly want to create? Sadly, we must have them in Chelmsford; they are being dumped on us—we are being asked to take a disproportionate amount of housing.
Where is that housing to go in the Chelmsford local authority area? There is a reasonable amount of brownfield land in my constituency, which will obviously be used up, but we must still provide a significant amount of other land for extra housing. The village of Boreham has been singled out by Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council for 2,000 of the houses. Boreham is a very small village and a compact community, and to swamp it with more than 2,000 houses will totally destroy its nature.
There is an irony that will be apparent to anyone who is not cynical. Sadly, any cynical person will have seen the trend in Liberal Democrat-controlled councils throughout the country. By strange co-incidence, Boreham had a by-election for Chelmsford borough council in early

July last year. Of course, the prospect of significant housebuilding in the village was a major issue in the campaign. The seat had been held for 13 years by a Liberal Democrat councillor who had retired. Through literature, interviews and press releases to the local papers, the Liberal Democrat candidate, with the full support of the Liberal Democrat leader of the council, spent the entire campaign assuring prospective voters that he was solidly opposed to any housebuilding in Boreham, and that as the elected councillor, he would fight against it.
Funnily enough, the Conservatives won that by-election, which shows the good sense of the good people of Boreham. Not only did they win it, but they won it on a turn-out of 42 per cent., with a 30 per cent. swing to the Conservatives. Lo and behold, only three months ago, it was Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council that decided to dump 2,000 houses on the village of Boreham. My constituents in Boreham are utterly perplexed at that sudden about-turn.
Although the Liberal Democrat candidate is not the borough councillor for Chelmsford, the leader of Chelmsford borough council is still the same man who stood side by side with that candidate when they were trying to get the voters of Boreham to vote for him, assuring the people of Boreham that they would not have the housing there and that the Liberal Democrats would protect Boreham from becoming a suburb of Chelmsford.
That is a classic example of the Liberal Democrats' behaviour. In what I assume will shortly be a general election, I would not want to be the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate campaigning in the village of Boreham. The people of Boreham have been bitten once and they will not believe a single word that a Liberal Democrat politician tells them, not only about housebuilding, but on any other subject under the sun.
My constituency will be crucified by the amount of housebuilding that is to be forced upon it in the next 10 years. That is wrong. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to place the proposed 2,500 houses in the Thames gateway and to reconsider the number of houses that they believe should be built.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Last Wednesday, at about 11.15 am, it was finally recognised that there had been an escape of sulphur trioxide from the sulphuric acid plant at Rhodia Eco Services Ltd, which is known locally as Staveley Chemicals, a previous name of the plant. Staveley Chemicals dominates the Staveley area and used to employ a great number of people. It now employs only 130, but those are important jobs.
The emissions had lasted for half an hour and, in breezy conditions, were spread over the rest of Staveley and into the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If it had been raining at the time, or there had been a great deal of moisture in the air, that would have turned the sulphur trioxide into acid, creating serious problems. It is not easy to determine whether it was worse for the breeze to disperse the sulphur trioxide, or whether the situation would have been worse if it had remained static, held by rain.
The emergency services moved quickly and, once the situation became clear, the police and fire services were on the spot. Nineteen roads in Staveley were blocked off, and the indications are that the emergency services


operation worked well, although there is further debriefing to be done and further information to be supplied to Derbyshire county council.
Staveley Chemicals has a siren that sounds when any emergency occurs. It now has an all-clear system, which ensured that another signal was sounded 45 minutes after the emergency signal, when the procedure had been completed. At one stage, it had only the initial emergency sound, so when false alarms occurred, people sometimes remained in their homes for considerable periods with their windows locked. Some of them stayed hidden under tables and so on, and did not know when to come out. I subsequently made representations suggesting the introduction of an all-clear system. There is a difficulty in the area, as Coalite at Bolsover, which is not far away, also has a siren system and it is not always clear which siren is being sounded.
The current investigation into what occurred is being conducted under the COMAH—control of major accident hazards—regulations. The incident in question took place after recent maintenance work. Three policemen and a television camera worker were taken to the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital and released later after treatment. Immediate investigations were set up by the integrated pollution control unit of the Environment Agency, working in association with the Health and Safety Executive. The plant's liaison committee, which is chaired by councillor Vicky Lang, meets today in Staveley to look into what occurred. The Derbyshire county council emergency planning unit is also reviewing operations with regard to the emergencies.
Unfortunately, the incident was not unique in North-East Derbyshire. In May and June 1998, there were two serious escapes of acid gas at the SARP plant in Killamarsh. In one incident, the gas escaped from a tanker. The other escape was emitted from a tank that imploded. In that incident, the tank that the tankers were filling up imploded, with a massive escape of acid gas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment later visited the SARP plant and the Killamarsh area. The offending processes at Killamarsh have since been moved from the site, which is now owned by Onyx. I am seeking the close attention of my right hon. Friend and of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with regard to the incident. It is likely that prosecutions will occur following the Environment Agency investigation.
Under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has power to introduce regulatory measures. Although that Act derived from the need to codify European Union regulations, it was also influenced by the SARP incidents, which had an important impact on the understanding of these matters that was gained by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. We must find out whether the powers that the 1999 Act provides are adequate for dealing with such circumstances, or whether the legislation should be added to, perhaps with provisions that confer prosecution powers against directors.
I have raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in connection with the ex-Vinatex workers group. The Vinatex firm was situated in the Staveley area, near Staveley Chemicals. It closed shortly

before I became an MP in 1987. An investigation that was recently conducted by the trade union safety team made various suggestions about the problems that occurred and about the risks faced by workers in the plastics industry in terms of cancers and other serious effects. It also pointed out the lessons that can be learned about more serious action in future. The matter is well understood by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and the incident at Staveley, which covered a vast area, needs to be taken on board in that regard.
Staveley Chemicals is next to Stanton plc, which is owned by Saint-Gobain, a French-based multinational company. Saint-Gobain took over Biwater Industries (Clay Cross) Ltd. in my constituency and immediately announced the plant's closure with the loss of nearly 700 jobs, leaving only a few maintenance workers. Jobs at Stanton plc, next to Staveley Chemicals, seem to be guaranteed for the time being, but given the way in which Saint-Gobain operates and is seeking to transfer a great deal of pipe production overseas, a problem still exists for Stanton plc.
I want to refer to the dismissal of workers at Biwater. Marks and Spencer proposed the closure of 18 stores in France, but after a plea by trade unions, on 29 March a judge in Paris ruled that Marks and Spencer had failed in its responsibility under French and EU law to give due warning to the workers, contrary to works council provisions in particular. Britain has no similar legislation, but had we had it, the 700 jobs at the Biwater plant in Clay Cross might still remain.
These problems arising in my constituency in the Staveley area and in Clay Cross, provide lessons for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My speech today is in two parts. First, I want to lay before the House the situation of my constituent, Mr. Crawley. Mr. Crawley is dying; indeed, he may already be dead as I speak. He has cancer, and neither his family nor I are in any doubt that his condition has been caused by the stress to which he has been subjected by the Ministry of Defence.
I shall not weary the House with all the details of his case; suffice it to say that Mr. Crawley's firm, Chesswood Floors, was a flooring contractor to the Ministry of Defence. His work for it in Kent over several years was of a quality which allowed him to win a contract carpeting MOD houses in Aldershot.
Out of the blue, acting on an allegation of fraud from an undisclosed source, the Ministry of Defence raided his office in May 1992 and took from it not only papers relating to the MOD but all his other business papers, to which it had no legal right whatever.
As a result, Chesswood Floors was forced into liquidation, Mr. Crawley's honesty had been impugned, the Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that it has no charges to bring—yet the Government, despite assurances on several occasions, have failed to disclose the necessary documents to allow Mr. Crawley a chance to rebut the allegations. Whenever he has complained, the MOD has told him that if he does not like it he can always go to court. How crude, how disingenuous and how tyrannical.
The MOD knows perfectly well that Mr. Crawley cannot afford to go to court. The whole thing smacks of MOD techniques perfected over centuries of dealing with aggrieved citizens—drag it out long enough and they will die off. We have seen it with soldiers entitled to compensation often enough; we are seeing it here now.
This is a clear case of Government bullying which has killed one of my constituents, and we should not adjourn until the Government promise instant action and redress.
Our procedures, based on the mediaeval belief that the best way to arrive at the truth is through adversarial confrontation, make it difficult to concentrate hon. Members' minds on anything but the shortest of short terms. However, unless we make a considered examination of the country's future, we shall betray not only those who sent us here but their children and grandchildren.
By some international measurements, we are one of the half-dozen richest countries in the world. We have houses, footballers and disc jockeys worth several million pounds. We are inventive, energetic and proud of our achievements. Why should not our current prosperity last for ever?
I live on the top floor of a block of flats. The block is well run, and serious defects are quickly spotted and speedily remedied. If I wish to improve my flat, I can do so with confidence. I sometimes believe that the United Kingdom is like a block of flats; let us call it UK court. It is full of people on the upper flows who are busily engaged in improving their property, building penthouses, putting in swimming pools and picture windows. However, unlike my block of flats, the basement of UK court is rotting away. Before too long, the effects of the largely neglected rot will spread to higher floors and destroy the building.
I invite hon. Members to consider elements that should receive much more attention. I begin with demography. By 2016, for the first time in our history, the number of people who are over 65 will be greater than that of those under 16. That will present enormous challenges. In previous centuries, we coped with demographic shifts by improving technology. However, the greatest need of an ageing and increasingly solitary population will be for human help. Its members are likely to be the least well equipped to adapt to new technologies. We shall need people to fill the gap.
The current debate on immigration should therefore be conducted without hysteria. We need more people if our public services are to survive and our older citizens are to be adequately cared for. We can find them either by immorally robbing much poorer countries of the skilled people on whom their future depends, or by adopting a rational immigration policy. Such a policy would either make use of the skills of our current immigrants instead of forcing them to do unskilled, illegal work, or it would establish a quota of foreigners who would be allowed to settle here permanently.
There are two other choices. First, we could stop killing our unborn children. Abortion rates among women aged 16 to 19 and 20 to 24 have been growing fast. In the 16 to 19 age group, abortions have increased from 2.5 per 1,000 in 1968 to 26.5 per 1,000 in 1998. For 20 to 24-year-olds, abortions have increased from 3.4 to 30.4 per 1,000 women. The UK has chosen a path that makes substituting foreigners for UK-born citizens inevitable.
The second option brings me to the next symptom of rot in UK court. We could make better use of our young people. We could start to love our children instead of disregarding them. We could give them the care and education that they need. We could give those who go off the rails the support that would return them to mainstream society. We currently do precisely the opposite. As a society, we do not love our children. In 1999, the Office for National Statistics found that 10 per cent. of our schoolchildren suffer from mental disorders and 30 per cent. of those are never seen by a consultant or even a general practitioner. Such children are four times more likely to play truant, three times more likely to suffer from specific learning difficulties and 10 times more likely to be in trouble with the police.
This is when we really show how we care for our children: once those children, whose homes are poor and usually fragmented, go off the rails, we clamour for them to be subjected to the full rigour of the law. "Lock them up", we cry, and we do. Although the incidence of youth crime has scarcely altered in the past 10 years, the number of those locked up has "gratifyingly" increased. Between 1991 and 2000, the number of male young offenders under sentence in young offenders institutions rose from 5,683 to 8,224. And what a good place to send them: 77 per cent. reoffended within two years of their discharge. Between a quarter and a third of the residents of young offenders institutions are not even convicted but are on remand. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
We should be even more ashamed of the next thing that I am about to mention. I wonder whether the House realises that, once in a young offenders institution or any other penal institution, a child is deprived of the protection of the Children Act 1989. If a 15 or 16-year-old on remand is raped, the social services cannot even carry out an investigation under the Act. What do we think we are doing?
Let us leave on one side our children who take to crime—after all, everyone else does. Let us look at our schools. We travel the world teaching other countries how to run an education system, so we surely must be good at it. Each year, 200,000 children fail to obtain at least one GCSE of grade C or above, and 30,000 leave with no graded GCSEs at all. That is hardly a stunning return on 42,000 hours of compulsory school attendance. No wonder truancy is on the increase.
GCSEs apart, what about skills? In some parts of England, almost four out of 10 adults cannot read or write properly or do simple sums. About 24 per cent. of adults in the United Kingdom can be described as functionally illiterate. As the international adult literacy survey found, 8 million people in the United Kingdom are so poor at reading and writing that they cannot cope with the demands of modern life.
This rich, proud country is turning out of its schools more functionally illiterate people than any country in the European Union except Italy. Not only is it a disgrace—indeed, a form of child abuse—but it spells huge dangers for the rest of us. People who cannot find work or earn a decent wage turn disproportionately to antisocial behaviour and disrupt the lives of the rest of us. If compassion does not move us, let us try self-interest. Self-interest persuaded the Victorians to build public drains. Would it persuade us to improve our schools?


It had better, because even if we set aside the need for dignity and self-regard as unimportant, we need these men and women for the future.
I could go on and on. I could point to the alarming rise in sexually transmitted infections and the frequent comments from our young that they do not know enough about HIV-AIDS. I could ask whether we are on the verge of a sharp increase in HIV. I could point out that our young people drink more alcohol and drink to excess more often than any other young people in Europe. We should listen to the voices of young people. The creation of the UK Youth Parliament has been of some benefit so far. Let us listen to the young people who have positive ideas for the future and try to make sense of our lives.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I see that a considerable number of Members wish to contribute to the debate. If hon. Members make their comments even shorter than 10 minutes, several more may be able to catch my eye.

Mr. John McDonnell: I wish to raise two constituency cases relating to the investigation of and response to complaints about health treatment. They have led me and many others to draw attention to the need for further reform of the NHS complaints procedures. The first case relates to an elderly man, and the second to a child.
The elderly man, Mr. Alfred Riddle, was taken into hospital on 8 March 1993. He was advised by his consultant that he had a small bleeding ulcer that required surgery. The family were advised that there was some risk, owing to his age. The operation was carried out on 10 March. He was then admitted to the intensive care unit. He died 16 days after the operation. The family were informed half an hour before he died that he had been suffering from stomach cancer and that it had spread, causing major organ failure. The family refused the death certificate as a result. They asked the key question why incorrect information had been provided before surgery, thus precluding Mr. Riddle senior and his family from making an informed decision about the proposed treatment.
When the hospital was questioned, it gave several different responses at different times. The family took up the complaint formally with the hospital trust in 1994. They were dissatisfied with the reply, which they found to be dissembling. They requested an independent review. The request was considered by the associate director of public health, but was deemed inappropriate. The family were instructed to resolve the matter locally. No appeal against that decision was possible under the procedure at that time. A number of meetings were held with the family. That did not resolve the complaint.
The family then approached the health service commissioner to seek an intervention, but with no success. The commissioner rejected the case because complaints should normally reach the ombudsman within a year of the event taking place or coming to his notice.
I wrote to the Minister, Baroness Jay, suggesting an independent review to satisfy the family. That was rejected. The advice provided was that the only alternative was for the family to seek legal advice. I sought a further ministerial meeting this time with Baroness Hayman. I was then informed that no appeal against the decision to refuse an independent review was possible under the original procedures and new procedures for NHS complaints had been instituted, but that a complaint that had first been lodged under the old procedures could not be taken up under the new procedures.
The system has proved to be totally inadequate in establishing the truth of the case, in satisfying the family's concerns and in demonstrating that any lessons have been learned for the future so that no one else has to go through that experience. Naturally, the family are not only concerned but extremely angry. Nearly 10 years after the event, they still do not know the facts of what happened to their beloved father.
I turn to an equally, if not more, tragic case: the case of my constituent Joanna Nash. She was aged six. She became ill on 31 August 1994, at which time she was taken to her doctor. The doctor advised her mother not to take her to hospital immediately, but on the following day she was no better. On 1 September 1994, Mrs. Nash took Joanna to Hillingdon hospital, where it was felt by the treating doctor that she should not be admitted; gastro-enteritis was diagnosed.
On 3 September 1994, Mrs. Nash took Joanna back to the hospital as there were no visible signs of improvement in her daughter's condition. This time, Joanna was admitted to hospital. Her kidneys had failed. On Sunday 4 September 1994, Joanna was transferred to Great Ormond Street children's hospital where her condition was immediately diagnosed as haemolytic uraemic syndrome and she was put on a dialysis machine. Unfortunately, that six-year-old child died on Friday 9 September 1994 at Great Ormond Street hospital.
The family were concerned with the treatment that Joanna received at Hillingdon hospital and met the consultants to question them about the nature of the treatment that was received, about the treatment that should have been received and about what the diagnosis should have been. They found the answers to be insufficient, to say the least. They went to an independent professional review. They discovered that even during the independent review, a number of factors had not been taken into account. Hillingdon hospital had refused to supply a blood sample to specialists so that they could further the investigation.
At no stage have the family been given a copy of the report that the specialists undertook in the investigation itself. Later, they discovered that the condition was caused by the bacterium E. coli O157, but the review itself never discovered that. They had to find that information themselves.
Joanna's notes were looked at independently as a result of the family's own intervention. It became apparent that errors were made in her "treatment", which not only failed to diagnose the problem, but even made the condition worse.
On the basis of that information, the family sought to reopen the inquiry. They were refused and told that it was not possible within the existing procedures, so there has been no opportunity to investigate and to demonstrate


whether the practices for treating Joanna were adequate or whether any lessons have been learned. The Nashes have set up an organisation that has campaigned over a number of years, linking families who have gone through similar experiences. I pay tribute to the work that they have done to raise awareness of that condition and of the need for better treatment. However, throughout all this, they have been told that the time limits preclude any further investigation of their daughter's death.
I believe that it is time to review the NHS complaints procedure to deal with the difficult cases that have been caught in the transitional process of change between the two complaints systems: the one prior to April 1996 and the one after it. There is a need to review cases that have been debarred simply because they were initially pursued under the system before 19 April 1996. There is a need to institute procedures for reopening inquiries when new information comes to light. There is a need for greater flexibility in the administration of time limits. No time limits are set in relation to serious crimes or miscarriages of justice and none should be set in these cases. There is now a need for a specialist agency to investigate complex cases that is similar to the Criminal Cases Review Commission which investigates miscarriages of justice. I urge that there should be greater lay input to any new procedure that we may establish.
My sympathy goes out to the families who have suffered so much—the Riddle family and the Nash family. They have suffered because the system was inadequate to meet their concerns. However, I salute them for their persistence in seeking reform and justice.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall try to be extremely brief as I appreciate that colleagues wish to contribute to the debate. However, given that we shall have a 12-day recess, it is a great pity that time could not be found for a proper day-long debate on the impact of the foot and mouth crisis which is affecting many hon. Members. I think that many people in the countryside will find it bizarre that we shall be taking a recess of almost a fortnight in which hon. Members will have no opportunity to question Ministers. I am also still waiting for just one answer to any of my written questions that is more substantive than, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible."
Some weeks ago, at Little Chesterton in my constituency, we had an isolated outbreak of foot and mouth. It was a devastating tragedy not only for the farmer concerned, Clive Hawes, but for the surrounding area. The result of that isolated incident was that MAFF designated an area within a 16 km radius of the outbreak as an infected area. The designation covers a vast area, going from Abingdon to Witney, round to Buckingham, Aylesbury and Thame and back to Abingdon, and affects a large number of farmers.
The effect of being in a designated area is that farmers inside it are subject to even tighter controls than those applying outside it. They cannot, for example, send their animals to slaughter or move them more than half a kilometre. It is also difficult for farmers in the area to enter animals into the welfare disposal scheme because, whereas animals in an infected area have to be slaughtered within that area, there is no slaughterhouse in the area. Although on-farm slaughter is an option, that option does

not seem to have been approved yet by MAFF and the Intervention Board. So, the animals are trapped on the farms, and the farms are rapidly becoming overstocked. We shall have some extremely distressing animal welfare problems.
Yesterday, I informed the Agriculture Minister of the concerns of Mrs. Wilcox, who has 3,000 piglets on her farm in temporary straw accommodation which has become waterlogged from the heavy rain. They cannot be slaughtered or moved. Almost daily, farmers telephone me in considerable distress because they cannot resolve issues in relation to ewes that are lambing in inappropriate conditions. However, their stress is compounded by the fact that they cannot get any answers from MAFF. No one answers the telephones or will tell them what is happening. More important, no one seems to recognise the problems that those farmers are facing.
To date, there have been no further outbreaks of foot and mouth in Oxfordshire. In previous outbreaks, the boundary of an infected area could be reviewed and reduced. Now, we have a ludicrous situation in which MAFF can designate an infected area of 16 km, but says that it cannot lift the designation without authorisation from Brussels. There does not seem to be an accepted understanding or process of how such authorisation is sought.
Therefore, large numbers of farmers in Oxfordshire seem to be stuck in a system in which their farms are simply over-burgeoning with livestock that they cannot move or have slaughtered, producing ever-increasing animal welfare problems. MAFF officials do not yet seem to be able to consider ways of approaching Brussels to determine how they can modify an infected area boundary. They seem to have the power to impose draconian restrictions, but no power to remove them.
I entirely accept the need for livestock movements to be controlled, especially in the tragic areas where the disease is running riot, but common sense must prevail. In the case of farmers in my constituency, there must be a strong argument for an urgent review of the existing control measures. Those farmers cannot simply be left to struggle on until MAFF officials get round to dealing with their problems.
I ask the Minister to use his influence with his MAFF colleagues to encourage them to carry out an urgent review of the current infected area imposed in Oxfordshire. I believe that there are similar problems in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, where isolated outbreaks have also taken place. Can there please be some recognition of the problems that are being experienced? Otherwise, over the Easter break Ministers will see on their television screens an increasing number of distressing pictures of animals that are themselves in considerable distress—scenes that I think would be offensive to everyone, and which are already causing great concern to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others. Farmers are powerless to act, and they are becoming increasingly upset.
I would like to say much more about the impact of foot and mouth disease on individual farmers and businesses connected with tourism in my constituency, but I know that time is short and others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will take my points on board. I would welcome a substantive written reply to my queries, and something more from the Government than everyone seems currently


to be receiving—the standard response to parliamentary questions, which is that an answer will be given as soon as possible. What we would like, and our farmers would like—as would others who are involved—is some answers today.

Dr. Rudi Vis: I want to focus on the earthquake in Gujarat. I have met constituents of all faiths, races and backgrounds who have contributed in one way or another to the many victims and loved ones of that horrible earthquake, which took place on 26 January 2001.
Huge cracks in the salt flats of the Rann of Kutch—it is not always understood how such cracks come about—marked the epicentre of the quake. At that point, some six miles below the surface, a failure in the seismic fault triggered an earthquake measuring 7.9 on the Richter scale. It resulted in the death of many thousands of people; it has also meant the destruction of the livelihoods of far more people in India and elsewhere than can be imagined.
Many of our constituents who have close ties with India through friends and family jumped into action with money-raising and other activities. Quite a few immediately went to India to help. Most of our schools helped with fund-raising in imaginative ways; temples, mosques, churches and synagogues sprang into action. I am honoured to represent a constituency containing so many people who immediately went out of their way to help India in whatever manner they could think of, and I am sure that I am not the only Member present with such constituents.
This tragedy is no different from similar occurrences in Greece, Turkey, China, El Salvador and Iran, but the scale of death and destruction is almost inevitably greater in India. The earth shook 1,200 miles away from the epicentre, and the quake was felt as far away as Nepal. Gujarat is a state with 42 million people, and tens of thousands of British Indians have extended families in that part of the sub-continent.
Within two days, the Indian army had mobilised its biggest emergency operation since the massive quake in 1950. The United Kingdom sent a 70-strong team ready to search for survivors, and to help fight diseases, set up tent camps, provide food and blankets, and assist in hospitals. India was well prepared in many ways—or as well prepared as it could have been—because almost half of India is prone to earthquakes. The weakest links are, perhaps, the collapsed modern tower blocks, which point to the ignoring of building codes and a failure to observe safety measures.
I wrote to the Prime Minister and to Ministers who deal with immigration matters to ask our Government to review speedily and with compassion immigration procedures for dependants of British citizens affected by the horrors of the earthquake and its aftermath. The replies were entirely positive and sensitive; I thank the Prime Minister and his colleagues for that.
I also wrote to Ministers about the enormous work undertaken in India by the BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha who have provided food, medicine, clothing and many other necessities for the survivors of the earthquake.

The distribution of relief material was the initial focus of BAPS; help was given to about 300 towns and villages by 6,500 volunteers, including doctors and many professionals. To give but one example, well over 1.5 million pouches of water have already been provided by BAPS. All the volunteers offer honorary service and the organisation has zero administration costs—remarkable in itself—so every pound donated goes directly and in full to the relief of the sufferers.
At present, rehabilitation of the homeless is the focus for BAPS; there is an imaginative low-cost, sponsor-a-home scheme and a hospital with modern facilities is being constructed in Bhuj.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend describes clearly what has been happening in his constituency. Equally, in my constituency, in the borough of Harrow, considerable efforts have been made by the Asian community and by churches and synagogues alike to raise funds to relieve the immediate suffering of those in the Gujarati earthquake. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we also need to consider how we rebuild the communities which have been hit by the earthquake? We must continue to exert pressure on our Government and on other Governments to ensure that, once the immediate publicity disappears, we retain the focus on rebuilding the state of Gujarat.

Dr. Vis: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I associate myself with every word of them.
I had planned to say a few more things, but as time is limited and other hon. Members want to speak, I shall point out only that if people want further information, they should please consult the website—www.swaminarayan.org. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office consider any further assistance that the Government could give to victims of the earthquake?

Mr. Mark Oaten: I, too, shall be brief, so as to allow other hon. Members to speak. I want to raise three planning issues on which the Government need to step in, to take account of the frustrations experienced by many local authorities and the constituents of many hon. Members when dealing with such matters. We need Government action.
The first issue relates to planning for mobile phone masts and to points made earlier. I agreed entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—at least, until he started talking about by-election results. There are considerable concerns in my constituency. Objections to the siting of phone masts have been made by action groups such as the Byron avenue action group and by a large number of villagers in my own village of Bramdean. At present, the policy is a mess; up and down the country, the four main providers submit applications week by week and no strategic consideration has been made of how local authorities can handle them.
We have the bizarre situation that some masts, below a certain height, do not require full planning permission, so the system can almost be bypassed. Conflicting advice and messages are received on health. Sometimes the message from the Government is that local authorities should take a precautionary approach, but there are no


provisions in planning law to enable them to enact such an approach so as formally to take account of health concerns. Throughout the country, test cases take conflicting views. With the development of new technology, we have the prospect that, within two or three years, houses will be built with small masts in their attics.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office reconsider the Government's proposed solution? They have suggested a voluntary code, but that is not the best way forward. In any case, the code needs strengthening. We need a system that encourages and makes much easier the shared use of sites. We must clarify what is meant by a precautionary approach for loca1 authorities; that information needs to be built into the planning system. What do the Government mean by the "next stage" of health concerns? What will the Stewart committee investigate? When will it report? Finally, I hope that the voluntary code will exist for a trial period only and that if the industry fails to abide by it, the Government will consider tougher legislation.
My second issue concerns local authorities' general planning and enforcement powers. I am sure that many hon. Members have concerns about local authorities' inability to take action if a business has been set up, or if someone has built on a piece of green land. The law is very weak in that area. Some individuals challenge court rulings. Others drag such issues out for many years.
In Swanmore, a village in my constituency, a saga has been going on since 1985. There have been several city council rejections of an application to convert a poultry house to residential use. There have been county court rulings against that application, and twice the Secretary of State has rejected the application, but the developers are still there, many years afterwards.
I hope that the Government will review local authorities' powers, but I understand that they have no plans to do so. They believe that those powers are strong enough already. I consider that many hon. Members would regard that stance as weak. Local authorities' powers should be greatly strengthened, because individuals who simply ignore court orders are running rings around them.
My final point relates to the problems involved in compulsory purchase and planning. Greater clarity is needed from the Government. I have in my constituency a new town called Whiteley, a lovely town. A commitment was made to build a road into the town, called Whiteley way. Everyone made contributions to that end, and it was assumed that the land could be bought for agricultural prices—about £600,000. There was then a judgment, the Kent County Council v. Bachelor judgment, which said that the owner of a crucial piece of land that needed to be built on could hold it for a ransom fee. As a result, that land is not now valued at agricultural prices but is worth millions of pounds. That makes it virtually impossible for the local authority to proceed and build a necessary road, which was promised to people in the area.
The Government committed themselves to a review of compulsory purchase and the cost of compensation. I understand that that review recommended that new legislation be introduced very soon to clarify the issue. To date, nothing has happened. I hope that the Minister can respond on that point.
I have been brief to allow others to contribute. I hope that if the Minister cannot refer to these issues in his winding-up speech, he will give me a commitment to allow me to come back to him on all of them.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall be as brief as I can, but that is not to lessen the importance of the issue that I raise, which is the murder of my constituent, Mr. Shiblu Rahman, who was stabbed many times in east London in the early hours of 1 April 2001. He leaves a widow and two young daughters. The Metropolitan police are treating the murder as a racist attack.
I wish to commend all those people, especially on the Lincoln estate, who have assisted the police with their inquiries, representing the whole community of east London. I wish also to express appreciation to the authorities for their sensitivity in handling the family's needs. Visas were provided for family members from Bangladesh. The local authority, the London borough of Tower Hamlets, considered the rehousing needs of the widow and her children. Support was also given by other authorities.
I wish to register on behalf of the family a number of concerns. I have already written to Chief Superintendent Rose Fitzpatrick—no relation—who is commander of the Metropolitan police in Tower Hamlets, who have good communications with the family. Indeed, the local commander, Mr. Smith, met the family yesterday and a liaison officer was appointed very early on. I have also written to the chief executive of the London ambulance service, who has responded by fax today, advising me that he will respond to the issues that I have raised with him, hopefully tomorrow.
The family have many concerns. Some have been addressed by the Metropolitan police, but others require answers. The meeting between the Metropolitan police and the family yesterday has resulted in the Met promising a full response within three weeks to a number of the issues raised, such as why no family members were allowed into the flat that Mr. Rahman managed to reach before he was transported to hospital, to assist in translating and taking evidence, and the fact that Mr. Rahman was not taken to hospital by the police or family members before the ambulance arrived.
The family's other main concerns include the time that the ambulance took to arrive, which was estimated at between 31 minutes and an hour, depending on different accounts; that no family member was allowed to travel with Mr. Rahman in the ambulance to the Royal London hospital; and, of course—finally and most importantly—whether earlier arrival at the hospital might have saved Mr. Rahman's life. They are reasonable, but angry questions from a very distressed and close family.
As I said earlier, Mr. Rahman, who was only 34, leaves a widow and two very young children. Those responsible need to be caught and prosecuted, and justice, as ever, not only needs to be done, but be seen to be done. The questions that I have asked must be answered. Clearly, from the evidence that I have received, the police have learned lessons from the Macpherson inquiry, but there are still issues to be addressed, and the London ambulance service has to address the serious questions that it has been asked.


I know that the House will condemn the murder of my constituent, Mr. Shiblu Rahman—a decent, ordinary, working member of our community. We certainly collectively condemn racism and expect the best and most sensitive treatment of his dependants.
I raise this matter to express my condolences to the family, to reassure them that their concerns will be addressed, to put down a marker that the serious questions that they have asked must be answered to their satisfaction and to give notice that I will naturally seek a full Adjournment debate at the appropriate time further and fully to examine the serious issues that have been raised by this heinous crime and to ensure that the safety of all my constituents is foremost in Poplar and Canning Town.

Mr. Peter Viggers: There is increasing frustration and anger among perceptive commentators about the manner in which the Government are treating Parliament, and the situation this afternoon is indicative of that. First, the Prime Minister defers the local elections theoretically to concentrate on foot and mouth disease, and then the Government announce an extremely long Adjournment at Easter in a week when five separate programme motions—or guillotines—have been tabled for five separate measures. The truth is that the Government do not really think that Parliament has a role in a crisis.
I was talking to a Cabinet Minister in a corridor last week. I congratulated him on the fact that he had been in the Chamber briefly when one of his junior Ministers was taking some business through the House and said that it was a pity that Cabinet Ministers could not spend more time in the Chamber, to which the Cabinet Minister replied, "I can't sit in there; we've got a country to run." How different from what happened under the Government formed by Mrs. Thatcher—as she then was—when the Falkland islands were invaded and it was decided that Parliament should sit on a Saturday to debate the issue.
This Government's attitude seems to be that if hon. Members sit back and allow the Government to get on with their business, they will run the country and get it right. I want to raise an issue that the Government have not got right. If the Government were to listen to Parliament and if Parliament were available for the next week or so, it would provide a better opportunity for hon. Members to debate the issue.
I heard with disbelief yesterday that it was intended to bury the carcases of slaughtered animals at Romsey in Hampshire. Hampshire is not affected by foot and mouth disease, and the last thing that local people want is their county to be infected with it. Clearly, if carcases are to be brought into the county and buried at Romsey, there must be such a risk, however detailed the arrangements to stop the infection spreading.
Immediately on arriving at the House, I went to the Table Office and asked to table a question for priority answer. I was told that, as the House was rising today, the earliest date on which my priority question could be answered was 23 April. So I have to wait all that time to find out whether animals are to be buried in Hampshire. I then went to my office and discovered that the Minister for the Environment had written a letter to the chief

executives of the local authorities on Wednesday 4 April, but that it was not sent to hon. Members until 6 April—a Friday, which all my hon. Friends know is the day on which Ministers publish answers that they do not really want people to read. Although the information was available on 4 April that the Environment Agency intended Squad wood, Salisbury road, Romsey to be an approved licensed landfill site to be used for burying carcases, Members were not told until the Friday of that week, and received the letter on the following Monday.
There have been developments. Hampshire county council has of course taken the matter up with the Environment Agency. The company in question has objected to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and been given a verbal assurance that the Romsey site will probably not be used. The Environment Agency says that it is "highly unlikely" that it will be used, at least in the short term. If it is used at all, it will be for local animals and every carcase will come in an individual body bag, disinfected and with all precautions taken.
There has been a huge number of calls from people in Hampshire expressing absolute disbelief that Romsey is to be used for the burial of carcases. It is appalling that the county council, despite having done all it can, has no influence to stop that. If the Government say, by diktat, that the site is to be used, it will be used. On behalf of the people of Hampshire, I ask for the same assurance that was given to the people of West Sussex, where county council leaders have been told that the disposal of carcases in landfill sites in the county will cease immediately and that there will be no further disposal without consultation.
Will the Government give an assurance, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that the notice from the Minister for the Environment will be withdrawn, and that there will be no further imposition of carcases on landfill sites in Hampshire until there has been further discussion?

Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of coal health compensation on behalf of the retired miners in my constituency and elsewhere. My constituency had a great tradition of coal mining, as did the north-east as a whole, before the previous Government got their hands on it and destroyed what had been a great industry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on the determination that he has shown. He has demonstrated that he will succeed in getting compensation for the miners. I praise the Government for their attitude to the matter. They are responding to the miners' claim for justice, which the Tory Government and British Coal resisted for years. In January 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked the Tory Minister to introduce a miners' compensation scheme, only to be told that their health problems were due mainly to smoking.
As we know, this compensation claim is the biggest in British history, with more than 142,000 claimants. I was proud when the Labour Government accepted it without question and made billions of pounds available to the miners who had done so much service for British industry. By taking the workers' side for once, a Government have


turned industrial relations around. We remember how the previous Government treated the miners, and the miners will never forget it.
In my constituency, 499 miners with respiratory diseases have made claims. Sadly, 13 of them died before they could receive their entitlement and only 87 have received full settlements up to now. That is a success rate of less than 20 per cent., which is unacceptable. We are talking not about statistics but about real people who want their entitlement to make life easier for themselves and their families.
I have contact with almost 100 of those miners when I meet them in my surgery or at the local shops. When they talk to me in that wheezing tone, it breaks my heart to see how the health of men who were once big, strong and fit has been affected to such an extent that normal life is impossible for them. That is why I support the campaign instigated by my local newspaper, the South Shields Gazette, and its editor, Rob Lawson, to get an additional testing centre based in south Tyneside.
In discussions with Ministers and their officials earlier today, I discovered that there are a total of 10,290 live claimants in the north-east. Almost 80 per cent. have had the appropriate tests at the centres in Newcastle and Durham. The Government have provided a domiciliary service to test housebound miners in their homes. We can therefore conclude that the vast majority of miners have passed through the first gateway. However, a testing centre in south Tyneside would be convenient for the small number who are left and their families.
The campaign has the support of my predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Dixon of Jarrow and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We have already met my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and we were delighted with his response. He said that resources were not a problem in ensuring that miners received what they were entitled to. There were no budgetary constraints and money was not an issue, so the possibility of establishing an additional testing centre would be investigated.
However, the real problems with the scheme are the legal complexities and the lack of respiratory specialists. Legal problems are holding up the claims and, after a lifetime in the pits, that is not what miners want to hear. With their lives destroyed, they have to wait for payments while lawyers argue. Each time the Government try to speed up or improve the process, both sets of lawyers must agree. Hundreds of millions of pounds must be going in fees to lawyers while more miners die every day.
Is it not nonsense that miners who have already been diagnosed with bronchitis and emphysema have to go through another medical to satisfy the lawyers? Those miners have already been diagnosed and been awarded the industrial injuries benefit, but they have to wait in a queue. We all know that that is part of a court judgment, but the dying men in my constituency do not want to listen to court judgments. Why cannot the lawyers accept existing medical records, as they do for deceased claimants?
The shortage of respiratory specialists is another major problem that is delaying full settlements. I applaud the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister in ensuring that the oldest and most ill are given priority. I know that the younger and fitter miners in my constituency who find that their appointments have been rescheduled will agree

that the older men who cannot breathe should go first. I would also like to appeal to specialists—whether they are retired, working in the private sector or in the NHS—to come forward to give extra of their time to a great cause.
The Government's efforts are there to be seen. They have tried to recruit more specialists, given priority to the sickest and oldest miners, given widows special priority payments, offered domiciliary procedure for the housebound and IRISC, the Government's insurer, is employing 340 people to deal with the cases. That means that more than 1,000 people are being processed each week. In the north-east, more than £77 million has been paid out and, over the next six months, an acceleration in the process means that an additional £68 million will be paid out.
The Tories will never be forgiven for destroying a great industry and we should never forget the debt that we owe to the miners and to the widows who nursed them at home when they were sick. They deserve justice and the Labour Government are determined that they will receive it.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I wish to raise a number of quick points.
The first is about housing stock transfer. The Labour Government encouraged Southend to run a ballot on its 7,000 properties, and that ballot took place a week ago. Some 68 per cent. of those eligible voted and 49.2 per cent. voted for and 50.8 per cent. voted against. When the ballot was set up, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party controlled the council and it seems that certain elements have undermined the ballot by talking about fat cats and the rest of it. Unfortunately, the result of the ballot has left Southend council tax payers in a difficult position. People will be made redundant and the £59 million that was available to refurbish the housing stock appears to have gone by the by.
My second point is about the exclusion of pupils from schools. It is extraordinary that the Government set targets for the number of youngsters who are excluded from school without having set up any alternatives as to how we educate those young people. The most shocking aspect concerns circular 10/99. As a result of the circular, young people can bring drugs to schools. The headmaster might expel them but, if the young children have not sold the drugs, but just passed them on, parents can appeal against the expulsion and the youngsters can be reinstated. I will not name names, but two pupils in two different schools have been reinstated, which has completely undermined the authority of the headmasters involved. The leader of the secondary heads union in Essex recently wrote to hon. Members who represent that county's constituencies about the shortage of teachers and the pressures that they are under. Is it any wonder when one considers the undermining effect of circular 10/99?
On the police issue, time after time, Southend puts in bids for closed circuit television which are not approved because they are not of good enough quality. I want to know what we have to do to produce an acceptable bid. The chief constable tells me, "It doesn't matter, David, that there aren't as many police as there used to be since we have had this Labour Government because we've got the new technology to try and catch the criminals."


However, for whatever reason, we have not been successful in those bids. The latest wheeze is that police officer numbers are being increased by Home Office recommendations which say that if no places are available at training colleges, officers will work out their five weeks at police stations. That will happen in Southend and they are included in police numbers.
As for the Palace theatre in Southend, I was delighted when it reopened because it is marvellous. But here we go again—our request for a grant was turned down. For some reason, the Eastern arts board does not understand the quality of the wonderful productions that take place there.
Finally, on transport, there have been many complaints about the local Arriva bus services, with which there are problems. The company has cut services and increased prices, and the low-rise buses are no longer available. I am also concerned about the c2c rail service. When the Conservative Government decided to reorganise British Rail, I was delighted that the Fenchurch Street service was going to have new rolling stock. Unfortunately, under the Labour Government new rolling stock has been delivered which cannot be used. I hope that Ministers will do something about transport and other problems in Southend because we do not recognise the rosy picture painted by the hon. Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott).

Valerie Davey: I want briefly to acknowledge the important contribution that the Government have made to improving not only the levels of employment in this country, but the quality of the terms and conditions of service. I also want to mention an issue that I hope the Labour Government will tackle after the next election.
Bristol, West has never registered as a deprived constituency, but unemployment has been a significant factor for many years in some areas. During the past four years, unemployment has fallen by 45 per cent. More importantly, thanks to the new deal, the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who claim benefit for more than six months has fallen by 87 per cent. It is good to know that in my constituency and throughout the country, more young adults are beginning to achieve. Doors are opening for them when previously they had been slammed shut and they are beginning to direct their own lives. Those successes are a huge plus for this Labour Government.
The Government's achievements, however, are about much more than the unemployment level. They have introduced the national minimum wage. That especially affects women and has been increased to £4.10. They have also introduced four weeks' paid holiday, equal rights that are proportionate for part-time workers, an extension of maternity leave to 18 weeks and parental leave of three months within the first five years of parenthood. In addition, they have restored trade union rights—especially at GCHQ—if there are 21 or more staff and the majority wish it. The much tougher approach to health and safety has reduced accidents at work.
The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 and the commission have been added to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Acts and the Race Relations Acts. "Yes," we might say, "that is huge step forward.

What more do we want?" People come to my constituency surgeries who are concerned, not just about fairness at work, but dignity at work. If hon. Members think they have heard that phrase before, they are right. Legislation was originally introduced in the House of Lords in December 1996 by Lord Monkswell to tackle the extremely important issue of bullying at work which, unfortunately, we have been unable to address in this Parliament.
Legislation on fairness goes a long way, but people are still coming to my surgery who have been sidelined and overruled. Inexplicably, their contracts have not been renewed, they have been passed over for promotion and, puzzlingly, they have been proposed for redundancy. That is not just a bad day at the office; people's careers have been stunted, their personal lives turned upside down and, worse, they have suffered prolonged periods of physical and mental illness. Bullying, which we often associate only with school, is still, sadly, prevalent in the workplace. The trade unions were stringent in taking that up years ago; between 14 and 53 per cent. of people interviewed recognised that they had been bullied. The Trades Union Congress launched a campaign in October 1998; in 1995, the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union contacted 140,000 people in a survey and found that 30 per cent. of those interviewed considered bullying to be a significant problem. I want to pay special tribute to Chris Ball, an MSF officer, for the work that he has done, and continues to do, in promoting that area among his members and the wider work force.
The Dignity at Work Bill was introduced and completed its passage through the House of Lords. It was introduced in the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) then, sadly, received no further attention. However, amendments were tabled in Committee, and the measure provides the basis for an important new Bill. Following amendment in the Lords and in Committee, the Dignity at Work Bill stated that employees had their right to dignity at work breached if they experienced
behaviour on more than one occasion which is offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating
or
unjustified criticism or more than one occasion".
That right was also breached if punishment was
imposed without reasonable justification
or if
changes in the duties or responsibilities of the employee to the employee's detriment
were inflicted without reasonable justification.
I am sure that my constituents welcome the work that the Government have already done but, certainly on the basis of casework that I am dealing with in my surgery, they look to the next Labour Government to introduce a dignity at work Bill.

Mrs. Angela Browning: As is traditional, the majority of Members who have contributed to today's debate have raised a wide variety of matters to do with their constituencies. Some contributions have concerned genuine life-and-death matters, and the House listened with concern to individual cases with which Members are dealing. Those cases could


not have been heard by a more responsive member of the Government, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will certainly follow them through.
During the Christmas Adjournment debate, I recall awarding my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) the prize for the most innovative contribution. He packed in a lot today, and I am at a loss to understand why his constituency—which, I am sure, is most deserving—fails to attract bids for closed circuit television, let alone its excellent theatre. I can only urge him to keep trying; I am sure that he can think of something.
The hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Telford (Mr. Grocott), for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) all made speeches that related to their constituencies.
The speech of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) was fascinating, particularly as it included visual aids. I am reminded of the poem by my namesake about the problem with rats. It occurred to me that if the hon. Lady arranged for them to be rounded up and brought here, they might make some friends. [Interruption.] I was thinking of Portcullis House and not of Members on these Benches.
The situation that the hon. Lady described sounds terrible. I was tempted to suggest that the rats should be trapped, but I realised that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who has left to participate in his wedding anniversary celebrations, might not have approved. None the less, the hon. Lady's speech was very interesting. She takes the prize this time for the most innovative contribution to our debate.
The right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) also raised a local matter. Although I am sure that it was not his swan-song in this Chamber, we realise that time is running out and that perhaps we shall not be able to hear him speak all that frequently in future. We wish him well with his constituency problem and in his future elsewhere.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) also raised very important issues; he always takes the opportunity of these debates to raise matters of great importance. The emergency that he described was of great concern. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will have listened very carefully to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised the question of masts and went on to address planning matters. I have total sympathy with him on the latter point, as I have a similar problem in my constituency with excessive housebuilding on greenfield sites—yet again with the approval of the Liberal Democrat party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made a thoughtful contribution to the debate. He described a very sad constituency case and went on to deal with matters to do with young people and how this House should address the challenges of making policy on them. He has also announced that he will retire at the election. We shall certainly miss speeches such as that he gave this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised two very sad and tragic cases. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town

(Mr. Fitzpatrick) also raised local issues, as did the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn). I will not be drawn into a party political response to the hon. Member for Jarrow, although I remind him in respect of his comments about the Conservative Government that the Labour Government are taking the matter forward only because there has been a High Court judgment. The hon. Gentleman will know that High Court judgments must be applied, whichever party is in power. We welcome the fact that the Labour Government are taking the matter forward, but it is not of their own volition. The matter was tested first in the High Court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the background to that as well as I do.
Other hon. Members raised matters concerning important issues outside these shores. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) began the debate by addressing the difficult and on-going problems of Cyprus, about which I know he has much knowledge, which he wanted to share with the House again today. The hon. Member for West Ham, who, unfortunately, is not in his place, raised the way in which Canadian seals are culled. I know that that subject is close to his heart. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) raised the tragic situation surrounding the earthquake in Gujarat, which clearly affects many of his constituents.
Conservative Members raised matters to do with foot and mouth, which is hardly surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned that not just people living in the countryside are very concerned about the tragedy and crisis that have struck us. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on the subject, in which I know he is well versed.
From the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), we sensed their frustration about getting answers in time, which many of us have shared in the past few weeks. When there is a crisis of any kind, the relevant Government Department is besieged with dozens of letters and questions. My hon. Friends made it clear that if, in a crisis such as the present one, Members of Parliament cannot get answers and our intervention in individual cases in our constituencies are not dealt with in 24 or 48 hours, there may be dramatic consequences. Cattle may be slaughtered unnecessarily. Sheer frustration has been the hallmark of the past few weeks for Members of Parliament who wanted quick answers to pressing and urgent matters.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Browning: No. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I have only 10 minutes and it is not customary to give way in winding-up speeches such as this.
In his initial comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) spoke of the changes to our procedures that are taking place in the House, which deny hon. Members the opportunity properly to debate, question and scrutinise the proceedings of the House. As shadow Leader of the House, I have made known my own concerns about that. My hon. Friend went on to speak of foot and mouth, the disposal of carcases into landfill and his frustration at not being able to use normal procedures in the House, and the frustration outside at the failure to get answers to a problem there.


Unfortunately, we were not able to hear contributions from all those who wished to speak, which is a mark of the interest of hon. Members in such debates. If, by chance, there is to be a general election on 7 June, there are still matters related to foot and mouth and other subjects in their constituencies that hon. Members will want to discuss in the few weeks remaining after the House returns on 23 April. On behalf of the official Opposition, I make a request through Madam Deputy Speaker for Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to respond, and for bids from hon. Members for Adjournment debates to be favourably received during those few weeks. I know that many hon. Members would not want to go from this place into an election without receiving answers to serious issues such as those that have been raised in all parts of the House today.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): We had 21 speakers from the Back Benches and I, too, am disappointed that not every hon. Member who wished to speak in the debate had the opportunity to do so. A large number of points have been made and it will not be possible for me to deal with them all this evening, but I give an undertaking that I will draw them to the attention of Ministers and try to get written responses to the many questions that have been asked.
It has been speculated that this might be the last Adjournment debate before the general election. I know nothing of that and nothing of timetables, but we had the opportunity to hear what may be a last speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott), from the right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who, because of other commitments, has limited opportunities to make presentations to the House, and from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Whatever happens, I wish them all well.
A number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members raised individual cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke of the Perrett case; my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) raised the case of Mr. Rahman; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised two constituency cases. I know that my hon. Friends are all outstanding campaigners who will pursue these matters with vigour. Whatever I can do in a personal capacity to assist them, I will do. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I believe that one of the things that we could best do in the NHS is to encourage professionals and hospital trusts to convene a meeting quickly when matters go wrong and to make an early apology. A great deal would be resolved if the professionals took that suggestion seriously. I heard what he said about involving more lay members in those procedures; again, I think that he is right.
The right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about an issue that he has pursued for many years. He said that it was unfinished business, and I hope that we can move towards resolving it, although I point out again that arbitration and mediation would be more appropriate than legal processes. He mentioned the compensation fund, and I hope that it will be possible to

get the disclosures that he seeks. He is meeting very soon the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), the Minister with responsibility for shipping, who will have the benefit of reading the comments that he made today. I shall try to ensure that his points are dealt with.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) again raised the issue of Biwater. He is, as ever, a doughty campaigner on the matter, but he is also keen to try to improve the environment in north-east Derbyshire. He asked for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in conjunction with others, to take measures to deal with the matters to which he referred. I think that he made a strong case, and I will do what is possible to help him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) spoke movingly on a subject that is close to my heart. Indeed, it is also close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who sits on the Whips Bench. A great deal more needs to be done to help former miners. After all, these men gave their health and, in some cases, their lives, to keep us warm. The Government are currently paying out £1 million a day in compensation, and I believe that we will eventually pay out about £4 billion. We are dealing with the largest civil case in history, and it will take three to four years to settle it, but I promise my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow and for Islwyn that we will leave no stone unturned in trying to speed up the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who often takes pole position in such debates, raised the issue of Cyprus, on which he is a doughty campaigner. The Government are committed to working with the United Nations to try to resolve the problems, despite all the difficulties.
My hon. Friends the Members for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the earthquake in India, which was a tragic event. Like them, I wish to join the voluntary groups and faith groups that are working hard both in this country and in India in trying to bring some humanity into what can be described only as an appalling situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green asked for all the Government's efforts to be made to resolve the problem. I give him an undertaking that we will look again to see what more might be done.
A number of planning issues were mentioned. I am keen to address them, as I share hon. Members' concerns. Housing and the erosion of the green belt are a major issue. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) recognised, the Government have made proposals to build more on brownfield land than on greenfield land. We propose that 60 per cent. of building should occur on brownfield sites. In my area in the east midlands, two out of every three new houses will be built on brownfield sites. That contrasts with the record of the previous Government, under whom one out of every three houses was built on brownfield land. We must do more to work on brownfield sites and to adopt a sequential approach. As he rightly said, the reclaimed land in his area should be developed first, before there is erosion into greenfield land and into the green belt. That is the Government's intention.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned telecommunications masts, on which he was supported by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) I remind both hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave an indication only last month of the new regulations that the Government intend to introduce. It is important that masts of under 15 m in height are part of the planning regime. It also important that we adopt a precautionary approach and that more money is spent on research. After the work of the Stewart committee, an extra £7 million has been spent on research. I acknowledge that there are difficulties in this area. We all want the benefits of telecommunications, but the downside is sometimes difficult to anticipate and perhaps we should have a more strategic approach to the matter.
The hon. Member for Winchester also mentioned the vexed issue of enforcement powers for local councils. I think that he has a point. There is real problem when villains play the planning system, and I hope that we can do more. The hon. Gentleman also talked about compulsory purchase and said that not a lot had been done. There has been a major consultation exercise and a working party, and the Government have asked the Law Commission to consider the issue with the aim of bringing forward legislation as soon as possible.
Not surprisingly, many hon. Members referred to the foot and mouth outbreak. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke movingly about the real problems in Oxfordshire. He clearly knows the problems, and I hope that, in areas such as his where there has been one outbreak and where the infection now seems to be under control, we shall be able to lift the restrictions. The hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends said that it is easy to impose restrictions but that it is often more difficult to lift them, and we now need to try to move forward.
I was delighted with the comments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) about foot and mouth being an urban and a rural problem. He is right. The issue affects small and big businesses, and those who try to divide town and country communities on the issue are being short-sighted
The hon Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly said that import control was a major issue, and I agree. There are strict laws and regulations and severe fines, but we must ensure that we have the resources to implement them. We need more Customs and Excise officers. We are acting on that, but the hon. Gentleman is right to ask us to do more.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is no longer with us; he has gone to have fun and frolics with his wife. He entertained us before that, but I shall save time for his comments later.
The hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made slightly different points, but let me chastise them. The Conservative party has called for landfill to be used for the disposal of carcases. Their party wants a quick solution to the problem and believes that landfill should be used. The Environment Agency and others have been consulted. It may well be the case that some sites, as the hon. Member for Gosport clearly recognises, have been approved but will not be used, but it will be important that all of us, from whatever part of the country, play our part in sorting out the problem. The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked for his letter, but the Minister is in Sweden. I promise him a reply soon.
Several hon. Members have talked about achievement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) talked about unemployment falling and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent talked movingly about the importance of commending young people. Let me commend him on his work with the UK Youth Parliament. We should commend success, not criticise failure quite so much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) talked about the East Ravendale school, and we await some success there. Outside toilets are disappearing all over the country, as are mobile classrooms. I am pleased that the Minister for School Standards has now joined us because she is to make a major speech during the Easter recess on further capital investment in our schools. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes well.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet talked about the need for extra investment in the NHS and the police, and he fairly recognised that it was beginning to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford talked about what has happened in his community under Labour, and I was struck with the 50th anniversary of the NHS in Lichfield.
We now need to go forward, to invest in public services and in a vision of the future. We shall do that.

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Marjorie Evans

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]

7 pm

Mr. Huw Edwards: I am pleased to have the opportunity to draw hon. Members' attention to the case of my constituent, Marjorie Evans. Mrs. Evans lives in Usk, in Monmouthshire. Since 1987, she has been the head teacher of St. Mary's school in Caldicot. The school has more than 200 pupils and includes a special needs unit. Although the school is in Monmouthshire, it is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth).
Mrs. Evans recently returned to school after an 18-month suspension. Her case has been lengthy and controversial, but the school is not in my constituency and my involvement was therefore limited to supporting Mrs. Evans as a constituent and making representations on her behalf after the conclusion of the case.
I appreciate that ministerial responsibility for the school and for Monmouthshire education authority lies with the National Assembly for Wales. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will acknowledge that the case has national significance and implications for education and the teaching profession in England and Wales. My aim in the debate is to highlight some of the wider issues that arise from the case and its implications for education. First, I want to examine the background.
I was first aware of the Marjorie Evans case when it was reported that the stipendiary magistrate in Abergavenny had suggested that Mrs. Evans could face a custodial sentence for assault. It was alleged that she had slapped a pupil who was being disruptive. The pupil was known to suffer from behavioural problems and had been prescribed Ritalin. The conviction and the three-month suspended sentence caused considerable public disquiet. Mrs. Evans appealed against the conviction and the case was heard in Cardiff Crown court. She was cleared of all charges. There was considerable public relief at the overturning of the conviction, and Mrs. Evans walked from court with her reputation restored, ready to return to school.
Immediately afterwards, however, the police stated that further charges were being investigated and that Mrs. Evans remained suspended. The matter was considered at considerable length by Gwent police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the board of governors and Monmouthshire county council. It was concluded that
there was no credible evidence against her",
and she was able to return to her position. There was another wave of relief and, indeed, joy when Mrs. Evans returned to St Mary's school. It was a great pleasure to speak to her on the phone with the happy noise of the school in the background.
I met Mrs. Evans at her home in Usk after the magistrates court case in Abergavenny. She was with her local National Union of Teachers representative, Andrew Haig. Mrs. Evans has been represented throughout the case by her union, and credit must be given to Gethin Lewis, secretary of NUT Cymru, and the NUT solicitor, David Evans.
Mrs. Evans had been found guilty of assault and her reputation had been besmirched by the comments of the stipendiary magistrate, who claimed that she had been a disgrace to the community, the teaching profession and the pupils in her care. The legal aspects of the case merit a separate Adjournment debate. This evening, however, I shall concentrate on its educational implications.
My impression of Mrs. Evans at the time was of someone who was dedicated to the education and care of children; she had been in teaching for more than thirty years. Not only had her career been brought to a shuddering halt by the allegations against her, but she faced the possibility of a jail sentence and the end of her career. Mrs. Evans is a remarkably strong person who was intent on clearing her name and returning to school, but nothing would ever be the same again.
Mrs. Evans has come to personify every teacher's nightmare and she has endured what every teacher dreads. She wants to ensure that no other teacher has to go through a similar ordeal again. She has come through it, yet serious questions remain.
Four key issues arising from the case deserve to be considered. They are the management of disruptive pupils and the exercise of reasonable restraint; the automatic suspension of teachers subject to allegations by pupils, parents or even fellow staff; the need for guidance to local education authorities and governing bodies on dealing with allegations of abuse; and the disciplinary process for dealing with teachers adopted by governing bodies and LEAs. I shall outline some of those issues in more detail.
It is an unfortunate aspect of teachers' role that they have to deal with disruptive pupils. In certain cases, that behaviour may be violent either towards members of staff or to pupils. Where teachers have to restrain pupils, there is clearly a problem of defining what reasonable restraint is. It is a legal duty of head teachers to maintain order, yet to do so they require the power and resources to meet the expectations of society and their legal responsibilities. It is a matter of considerable concern throughout the teaching profession, and the profession deserves clear national guidelines that apply to England and Wales and that are applied consistently.
The case also raises the question of exclusion for persistently disruptive pupils and the resources that are necessary to continue those children's education outside the mainstream education system. There is in Monmouthshire no pupil referral unit for pupils at key stage 2 who are boys between the ages of seven and 11. There is no provision whatever for girls of any age.
I am a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and during our recent inquiry into social exclusion in Wales we visited a pupil referral unit in Denbighshire, where excluded pupils were able to continue their education and receive the specialist support that they needed. It would be ideal if such provision were available in all authorities. It is a matter that the Government should look into.
Teachers are in a unique position, as the primary responsible adults with whom children come into contact outside the home and who are in a position to detect signs of abuse. Yet their daily contact and caring role makes teachers vulnerable to accusations of abuse by pupils, parents or even staff. Such allegations may be false, malicious, misplaced or misinterpreted. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to consider whether it is appropriate for a teacher to be automatically


suspended when the allegations are of low-level physical abuse. Such teachers are suspended on full pay. That is intended to be a neutral form of action, yet in reality it rarely is.
Even where teachers have been exonerated, their careers have been ruined by the stress of months of suspension, and pupils have been denied the skills and support of the teacher who has been so suspended. There is no question but that teachers should be automatically suspended in cases of suspected sexual abuse or where there is evidence of serious physical harm. The key question is whether it is appropriate automatically to suspend a teacher who is subject to an allegation when there has been no investigation of the teacher's viewpoint.
The next point concerns the availability of expert advice. Do local authorities have access to specialist advice in such cases? Can they remain impartial when giving advice? Teachers who are suspended have to prove that they are innocent; that is quite different from the usual process of law. It is proposed that there should be agreed national guidelines across England and Wales to assist LEAs and governing bodies to investigate allegations before they consider suspension.
We owe a great deal to the people who sit on governing bodies. They give of their time voluntarily, but they take on immense responsibilities for the running of the school. They need support, advice and training to help them carry out such a difficult task as being involved in disciplinary action against teachers. There was considerable public concern in Marjorie Evans' case about why it took 18 months from her suspension to her return to school. She had to go to the High Court to require Monmouthshire county council to reveal the allegations against her and which disciplinary procedures it was following.
I understand that Jane Davidson, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly for Wales, has ordered an inquiry into the process and has invited the county council, the NUT and the governing body to respond. These issues were raised at a conference in Cardiff last November, called by the NUT to discuss best practice in dealing with allegations of abuse against teachers. I met Mrs. Evans at the conference. These issues are likely to be raised again at the NUT national conference in Cardiff this weekend, which I also hope to attend. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will attend, too, and may make a statement pertaining to the implications of the case. Recently, I was pleased to welcome him to my constituency and to King Henry VIII comprehensive school in Abergavenny, where he heard of the support of the teachers of Monmouthshire for Marjorie Evans. He has been an inspirational figure, and I hope that he will be able to look at those issues in some detail.
Our teaching profession plays a vital role in the education and welfare of children and young people. I commend teachers' dedication, skills and professionalism. They deserve protection from the threat that their careers could be ruined as a result of false or malicious allegations. Pupils deserve the opportunity to be taught and to study in a classroom undisturbed by the activities of other pupils who are disruptive or violent, whether to other pupils or to staff.
The case of Marjorie Evans has highlighted a series of issues that deserve the fullest examination. She has endured a traumatic episode. We rejoice that she has

resumed her career, but lessons must be learned. I sincerely hope and believe that the Minister will be able to take on those issues in her deliberations with ministerial colleagues and representatives of the teaching profession.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on securing this debate. Adjournment debates are traditionally occasions when hon. Members bring concerns of individual constituents to the attention of Ministers and the House—and long may that continue—but I am not sure that I have ever answered an Adjournment debate in which an hon. Member has talked about the case of an individual constituent that has had such wide-ranging implications for my Department's work. I thank my hon. Friend both for letting us know what has happened to Mrs. Evans and for focusing us on some difficult issues.
I do not think that there are easy answers to any of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. People have deliberated about and discussed them for many a year. They are now perhaps further up the nation's agenda than they were previously. I suspect that that is in no small part due to the incidents that have surrounded the suspension and reinstatement of Mrs. Evans.
Having acknowledged my hon. Friend's contribution, I know that he will appreciate that I want most of all to acknowledge Marjorie Evans, her contribution to education and what has happened to her in the past 22 months. She is a teacher of long standing, high reputation and high esteem. She has been teaching for more than 30 years. If we added together the number of children whom she must have taught and the number of communities that she must have served, the total would be higher than any of us could imagine. As many good teachers who have been in the profession for as long as Marjorie Evans know, they change people's lives. I think that, when Marjorie Evans started her career, she never for a minute dreamed that she would make headline news because of these incidents.
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mrs. Evans on the steadfast way in which she has behaved throughout, and on her successful return to school. She has shown tremendous courage, energy and continuing commitment to her community and to the children. There will have been many who would not have withstood what she went through and still have wanted to return to school. As I said when I had the chance to spend a few minutes with her before the debate, I wish her well for her return and for September—the start of the first academic year in which she will have resumed her duties in full.
I put on the record my appreciation of the work and representation of the National Union of Teachers, the professional body of which Mrs. Evans is a member. Such bodies have many roles in our national life, but any individual teacher who is a member of a teachers' union hopes most of all that, when they need help individually in their professional life, the union will answer the call. The NUT has done that exceptionally well. I know that Mrs. Evans pays tribute to the work of the officers of the NUT in Wales. I join in recognising their steadfastness and enthusiasm in representing her.
My hon. Friend was right to say that Mrs. Evans is a teacher in a school in Wales and that this Parliament has no responsibility for what goes on in Welsh schools,


which is properly the responsibility of the Assembly. I do not want to tread on any toes in that respect. Instead, in the time I have available, I should like to do two things. First, as I have had the opportunity to speak to my colleague Jane Davidson, the Assembly's Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, I should like to confirm the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. Secondly, I should like to reflect on some matters outside the Evans case from which we may be able to learn some lessons that we can apply in England, in Wales and in Scotland.
My hon. Friend was right that Jane Davidson has confirmed to me that she has written to the local authority and the governing body seeking information on the procedures that they followed in the Evans case. The Assembly will want to exercise its power to examine those procedures, but not the specific allegations against Mrs. Evans. As one of the features of the case has been a re-examination of allegations, it is important to make it clear that the Assembly and the Minister will want to examine only procedures and not the substance of the allegations. The examination will be conducted under section 496 of the Education Act 1996 which allows examination and consideration of the reasonableness of procedures used.
The governing body and the local authority were asked to respond to the Assembly by 12 April on the procedures, particularly on the time scale allowed for decision making. I am pleased that my colleague Jane Davidson has also invited the NUT to comment on the case and its involvement in it. I understand that the school's governing body has asked for a one-week extension, to 19 April. which has been granted.
I know that, on receiving the representations, my colleague Jane Davidson will decide on possible action as quickly as possible. She will want first to decide on copying the information in the responses to each of the parties, which will be a matter for her, and then to advise the Assembly on the information. Only after completing her investigations will she want to say whether the local education authority or the governing body acted unreasonably and whether, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, she wants to direct them to change their procedures. As a Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament I will have no involvement in those matters.
Additionally, while she is investigating those matters, Jane Davidson will quite properly neither meet Mrs. Evans nor speak on the record about them. That is how the process should properly be conducted, and I think that it is in everyone's interests that we keep that process separate from my comments on possible lessons to be learned.
As I said, the specific case is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. However, I know from my duties in the House and in relation to teachers in England that such a case could have occurred in an English school. I think that we will all want to examine the case to determine whether we can improve how such matters are dealt with.
It is hugely difficult to strike the right balance in dealing with such cases. I am not being complacent, but I suspect that whatever rules, lessons or guidance we decide we want to follow, some of the most difficult decisions that Ministers, local authorities and governing bodies ever

have to make will be on such cases. However, we have to become better at making such decisions by establishing clear guidelines and ensuring that everyone understands his or her responsibilities. As I shall explain later, we particularly have to ensure that action is taken in a timely fashion.
I think that there is great agreement on the challenge facing us and that it is more a matter of striking the right balance. Regardless of what people think about Mrs. Evans's case or other cases that have come to public attention, no one—not Mrs. Evans, the school, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, the Welsh Assembly, and certainly not the United Kingdom Government—wants allegations of abuse or inappropriate behaviour against children not to be investigated.
There have been too many debates in the House on cases—not least in Wales—in which allegations have not been properly investigated for us not to have learned some lessons. Some children's lives have been blighted because there have not been timely investigations. However, although the facts sometimes show that allegations are true and that there was a need for an investigation and action, sometimes the facts show that allegations are not true. When they are not true, a different set of people—teachers, teachers' families, the wider school community and the wider general community—become the victims.
That is the difficulty involved in examination of cases such as this. Once the allegations have been made, whether they are true or not, a life may be ruined unless they are dealt with in a timely and correct fashion. We must work harder to get the balance right.
Let me acknowledge something, without giving any figures. I do not think that anyone, certainly in Government, has ever said that some teachers' careers have not been blighted. As one who taught in a school for 18 years, I know what it must be like to have taught children, to have trusted them and gone to work every day to further their chances in life—to have put heart, soul and professional energy into that—then to find that false allegations have been made about one's professional conduct. I well understand what it must be like to find that one's standing in the community that is the most important to one has been put at risk. But we need to get the balance right, and there are no easy solutions in that regard.
I am especially struck by the inordinate length of time that it seemed to take to process the case that we are assessing. We need to examine the way in which such cases are dealt with and to find out why progress is so slow—why there are gaps of weeks or months while nothing is resolved. During the last 12 months, the Government have been working with a teacher and child protection group consisting of a joint forum, containing representatives of teachers' unions—including all six teacher representatives of the NUT—and representatives of local authorities. We have looked at ways of speeding up the process to ensure that any allegations of abuse are dealt with as quickly and fairly as possible.
That, I think, is how we should act. While not cutting out investigations, proper consideration, discussion with governing bodies, letting local authorities have their say and following the proper course of law, we should ensure that all those elements of justice—which we want to retain—do not move as slowly as they seemed to in the


case of Mrs. Evans. My hon. Friend is right: in due course the Secretary of State will want to report to the nation on what we have learned from our working party, and how we want to proceed on the basis of that.
Of all the lessons that have been learned, I think that the one relating to speed needs most to be considered. We should think about guidance and guidelines that suggest how governing bodies should carry out their responsibilities. Considering those who go on to governing bodies, and choose to give their time—voluntarily—to a community and a school, I suspect that not many governors imagine that they could eventually be put in this position. At times like this, when difficult decisions must be made, governing bodies—not just the governing body at St. Mary's, but governing bodies of schools throughout our countries—need support.
We should also consider whether the guidelines that we give governing bodies help them to do their jobs as effectively as they might, and whether, during that difficult procedure, they need support to carry out their functions. I do not want anyone to interpret that as a suggestion that their rights or obligations should be removed; we should ensure that they are supported as much as possible.
The process that we have been discussing has been unusually lengthy. What I have been most conscious of throughout is this: we may reflect nationally on what it means for the 450,000 teachers in our two countries, and for the 24,000 schools and 24,000 governing bodies, but at the centre of the debate is one school, St. Mary's junior school—not in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts—one governing body, and one community that wants to get on with learning, teaching and furthering life chances. Over the past two years—nearly—those people have been propelled, not through their wishes or for reasons of their making, into national headlines that they did not invite.
Every teacher at St. Mary's, every parent who sent a child there and every governor who gave generously of his or her time did so not to have a debate about this issue, but to get on with the process of teaching and learning. That is the agenda on the basis of which that school can move forward. We should not forget that.

Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such disruption affects other schools as well? While Mrs. Evans was suspended as head of her school, a

head from another school—St. David's school in Abergavenny—was transferred there, so that other school, too, might have been disadvantaged.

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. Schools are learning communities, but they are also dependent on other schools. That wider learning community—all the neighbouring schools—has felt the impact. I have never been to an area where schools did not show generous concern about what happens to their neighbours—they are eager to give of their talents, and care when other schools are in difficulty. I readily acknowledge that.
I suspect that what is beginning to happen at St. Mary's is that relationships are being rebuilt; trust is beginning to be firmed up again; and the focus on teaching and learning is beginning to return. In relation to my hon. Friend's point, we also owe a debt of gratitude to the teachers—both the full-time staff and those who came in to help—who have kept the school going throughout 21 months of turmoil. Learning has continued: children have left and begun school during that time.
Most of all, schools want stability. They want a head who is secure in a permanent post. They want to be able to focus on teaching and learning—for children and for the wider community. St. Mary's school is embarking on that task of rebuilding and of settling down. I am sure that everyone in the House will wish the school well.
After all the turmoil that Mrs. Evans has undergone and after all the support given by my hon. Friend, perhaps something worthwhile will come out, because we too have learned lessons—both as a school service and as nations for whom education is a major service. We shall reflect on the matter. It is poor consolation for people whose lives have been disrupted, but I suspect and hope that in future cases, the lessons that we have learned from St. Mary's will be reflected. In that small way, I hope that something good might have come out of a case that has made people suffer and made them miserable for the past 21 months.
To finish on a note that will unify us, I wish Mrs. Evans well in the career that she has resumed. I thank my hon. Friend and everyone who has supported Mrs. Evans. Most of all, I wish the children, the governors, the parents, the community and the teachers every good fortune as teachers focus on what they went into the job to do—teaching the children who come through their gates.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.